What’s wrong with those Aussie Politicians? Australian politician duped (again) into waffling against Scientology

Reading the media this morning. Super-nonsense. Gosh, what’s wrong with these Aussie Politicians? Believing every POS served to them?

Here’s a little background education lesson:

tl;dr: The history of the Church includes a series of battles won to overcome unfounded allegations as it expanded into new nations. In every instance the Church has persisted and ultimately prevailed. And in Aussie-Land it has just been 30 years that some Senators fell on their face – squarely – when trying to spread false information about Scientology (It looks like a new generation of dupes grows every 30 years there).

Attacks against the Church of Scientology

The Church of Scientology has been safeguarding the existence of the Scientology religion for five decades. Over the years this involved many court cases to be fought, and many controversies have gone down the drain of history… But here are some of the more important dates in history of Scientology defense:

Most significant is the 1993 decision of the IRS, which brought an end to a 40-year conflict. Following a two-year investigation-the most extensive of any charitable, nonprofit organization in IRS history-the Service rejected all of the false allegations that have formed the basis of attacks across the world. The IRS concluded: That the Church of Scientology is organized “exclusively for religious and charitable purposes.”

The unfounded allegations that spawned any perceived controversy regarding Scientology originated in the United States. Beginning with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), these false claims and allegations were rooted in religious bigotry during a time of distrust: the beginning of the Cold War and the influence of McCarthyism. As with any new idea, Scientology was greeted with suspicion. Unfounded rumors were repeated as “fact.”

These unfounded charges were disseminated by the IRS to foreign governments. Because the Church’s headquarters were located in the U.S., these false reports were given great credence by foreign governments in targeting foreign Churches of Scientology, resulting in oppressive attacks and laws. Yet, these allegations-each and every one-have been
disproved.

The first fallout from the disinformation campaign was the 1965 “Inquiry” into Scientology in the State of Victoria, Australia, culminating in enactment of repressive legislation that essentially made it a crime to practice Scientology. Once the false allegations against the religion were repudiated, these discriminatory banning laws became a major embarrassment to the Australian Government-so much so, a former Australian Senator and Deputy Premier of Western Australia traveled to the United States in 1976 to attend the Churches of Scientology International Prayer Day and apologized to all members of the Church, stating that the ban on Scientology had been the “blackest day in the political history of Western Australia.”

Subsequently, Scientology was fully recognized by the Australian High Court, which came to the “irresistible” conclusion that Scientology is a religion. Today, this landmark decision forms the basis for determining what a religion is for purposes of Australian and New Zealand charity law and has become the standard for courts and governments throughout the Commonwealth.

Similarly, in Italy during the 1980s the Church overcame intensive government repression, including government action shutting down all Churches of Scientology, based on the same false allegations about the religion. This ultimately resulted in another Supreme Court decision, now standing as the foremost decision by a national high court on the subject of religion on the European Continent.

And in Spain, those same sorts of allegations reached a crescendo with assaults on Scientologists and Church leaders. No greater example exists of how false allegations can create oppressive atrocities-including false arrests and imprisonment. In fact, that investigation and trial went on for 17 years. After a yearlong trial, the case finally concluded in 2001 with 100 percent vindication wherein the three-judge panel announced, “Absolvemos Libremente”-absolved without reservation.
El Pais captured the discriminatory essence of these proceedings and the attempt to assault the religion in an article in December 2001 entitled “Acquittal for Those Persecuted.” This decision of the Provincial Court in 2001 after years of proceedings eliminated any further question regarding Scientology’s religious bona fides and allowed the Church to begin the process of obtaining full religious recognition in Spain.

Once the Scientology religion prevailed by achieving total victory in the criminal proceedings, full religious recognition in Spain was inevitable. The Church of Scientology is now officially recognized as a religion in Spain. On October 31, 2007, the National Court in Madrid issued a unanimous landmark decision affirming the right to religious freedom in Spain by recognizing that the National Church of Scientology of Spain is a religious organization entitled to the full panoply of religious rights that flow from entry in the government’s Registry of Religious Entities.

In France and Belgium, discriminatory practices have targeted the Church of Scientology as well as other faiths. The infamous parliamentary “blacklists” in these countries-targeting 173 religions including Southern Baptists, Evangelical Christian groups and Sikhs in France, and 189 religions including Hasidic Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha’is, Zen Buddhists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Amish, Quakers, five Catholic groups, and the YWCA in Belgium, in addition to Scientology, led to a system of religious intolerance. Yet, as has become the pattern, continued persistence in exposing the falsehoods behind that discrimination has resulted in wholesale condemnation of these lists by human rights groups and other governmental bodies. As a result, the French government officially revoked this “blacklist” in a May 2005 Circular of the Prime Minister denouncing the use of the list.

In Russia the Church of Scientology Moscow was denied the right to re-register as a religious organization under the 1997 Russian Religion Law. Deprived of essential rights afforded to registered religious organizations in Russia, the Church applied for protection of its fundamental religious freedom rights to the European Court of Human Rights. In April 2007 the Human Rights Court issued a unanimous landmark decision in favor of the Scientology religion. Specifically the Court found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 (the right to freedom of association) “read in the light of Article 9” (the right to freedom of religion) of the European Human Rights Convention when it refused to re-register the Church of Scientology Moscow.

One cannot view the battles for religious freedom in Europe solely in the context of Scientology. These issues are much broader and have to do with the state of government and religion across the Continent. The reason the issues are often connected to Scientology is because the Church of Scientology is the most prominent of all the new religions. Scientology is most often associated in the media with religious freedom questions as it is the most recognizable new religion to the public.

Churches of Scientology are free to operate anywhere in the world. Where intolerance and discrimination exist, the Church sets the precedents for religious freedom and human rights for everyone.

78 Comments

  1. Stephen,

    I have no reason to doubt you, but also no way to know if you are the same as in the article. (given the nature of anonymous sites such as this, of course)

    regardless of that, I am truly sorry for the loss of this young man. it was a senseless tragedy.

    louanne, we don’t protest or advocate reform because we hate scientology or scientologists, it’s because we genuinely feel that situations such as these cab be stopped. we’re not against you, we’re for the McBride’s of the world. he, and they, deserve a voice, don’t they?

    but this young man, his voice is locked in sealed files somewhere. we have become his advocate, for his family.

  2. I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your brother Stephen.
    There are more exScientologists out than ever before. Your brothers death will not be in vain.

    Guzner did that because of Anonymous? What happened to Scientologists idea of personl responsibility?

  3. For one thing- nor am I. Nor are the bulk of those that are critical of scientology. The bulk are those like me, critical, but not necessarily protesting. Or politicians. Or journalists. The list goes on.

    Furthermore, it is still legal to protest- that first amendment and all. CCHR did it at the APA convention, didn’t they? And for many, a career, which they believe to be saving lives (personally, I agree, with some glaring exceptions) is equally important. What gives CCHR the right to disrupt their convention?

    Lastly- who duped Guzner?

  4. Milper, this is all very nice, but you miss the essential point that I am not standing in front of your Church or whatever community you might call your spiritual home and yell obscenities or provocations at you. Those masked Anons do. Once a month.

    I might also add that I am not duping underage kids to commit felonies, like Anonymous did with Guzner.

    – L

  5. “I won’t ever be someone other I truly am. And sometimes I wish I’d be invisible but “Anonymous”, nope. ”

    That is a truth for you, and I am grateful that you have it. However, I’m sure you realize that, that alone may fail to convince another. We truly have no idea who you are behind your mask, as you do not with a random protester. People are truly more complicated than you have, seemingly, been led to believe.

    “I am doing that all the time. Actually, it’s irrelevant to me who you are. As long as you can back up your claims, of course. ”

    It’s not us that you seem to judge as harshly as you do protesters- I believe that is the point.

  6. (and as long as you decide whether you are squirrel, scientologist, wog or alien, or whatever).

  7. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 3:24 pm
    how would we know if you are being someone other than you truly are? you’re anonymous.”

    I won’t ever be someone other I truly am. And sometimes I wish I’d be invisible but “Anonymous”, nope.

    “I suppose we could take your word for it… but could you do the same?”

    I am doing that all the time. Actually, it’s irrelevant to me who you are. As long as you can back up your claims, of course.

    – L

  8. “Comment by Anon on November 18, 2009 3:04 pm
    Jeff Hawkins for example didn`t get “picked up” by anyone.”

    ORLY? How do you know? If I remember right there was some journalist on the hunt for a story first.

    – L

  9. how would we know if you are being someone other than you truly are? you’re anonymous.

    I suppose we could take your word for it… but could you do the same?

  10. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 2:58 pm
    “Truth can usually be accompanied by documentation. Medical records, sworn witness testimonies under penalty of perjury, video evidence, audio evidence, written documentation. None of which exists with the “they” you are mentioning.”
    simple follow up question… where is the “proof” of the “truth” that they are lying?”

    It’s not the Church that has the burden of proof here. And the absence of ANY (ANY!) evidence to back up the verbal claims of these people is sticking out a lot.

    – L

  11. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 2:55 pm”

    I am not pretending to be someone else nor do I pretend to do something else than I am doing. That’s quite different to someone saying that they want to “reform things” but reality do nothing but destroy. Or to fake interest.

    If you read my last comment without the idea of “finding something to blame her for” (or whatever is happening there) you can see that I do not request anyone to reveal his or her identity. It’s even part of this blog’s FAQ. I am not interested in who you are, other than necessary to understand you better.

    – L

  12. sorry, wrong url
    counterfeitdreams.blogspot.com

  13. Jeff Hawkins for example didn`t get “picked up” by anyone. He wrote his blog counterfeitdrems.blogspot.com on his own volition.
    He didn’t write a book to make money. He doesn`t want to destroy the church. He just wants to tell it like it is.

  14. “Truth can usually be accompanied by documentation. Medical records, sworn witness testimonies under penalty of perjury, video evidence, audio evidence, written documentation. None of which exists with the “they” you are mentioning.”

    simple follow up question… where is the “proof” of the “truth” that they are lying? and i’m not talking about documents generated from within the cos assassinating their character.

  15. I can’t avoid the irony: do you realize that you do the same, by hidng behind a website? it just a different mask that you wear. why is it okay that you hide your identy (and remain anonymous), but not for others?

  16. ” Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 2:45 pm
    but what if they are telling the truth? how would you know otheise?”

    Truth can usually be accompanied by documentation. Medical records, sworn witness testimonies under penalty of perjury, video evidence, audio evidence, written documentation. None of which exists with the “they” you are mentioning.

    “it it not possible that these people could have possibly, if only a slight chance, have actually seen or experienced the things to which they are referring?”

    I have not seen or experienced anything close to what these people say. But I have seen people who “spoke up” about things that I did witness and thus I do have a first-hand accounts that I can compare to what these jerks claim. So I know from personal experience that TRUTH does not fit into their equation.

    Mistakes happen and I have seen many. And I have seen dedicated people working hard to remedy them, and usually they are successful.

    – L

  17. I disagree, but that’s okay.

    in the same way, I can see that no one is dehuminizing the cos, as you charge.

  18. Cool theory, but it doesn`t make sense.

    Who are these “specific people” whose purpose is the destruction of the CoS?

  19. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 11:33 am
    and that includes your other dot info site. you have articles about “anonymous” at each site.”

    Yes, I have an article about Anonymous here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/anonymous/

    and one here:
    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/anonymous/

    And how does that prove your point? You said I would label people to dehumanize them. That’s a lie. I am not labeling people Anonymous, a group whose members intentionally dehumanize themselves by wearing masks, using their own speak and covering up each others crimes. To the contrary, in plenty of past discussions I asked them to stop hiding behind the “Anonymous hive mind” and be a responsible individual that thinks for himself.

    – L

  20. but what if they are telling the truth? how would you know otheise? it it not possible that these people could have possibly, if only a slight chance, have actually seen or experienced the things to which they are referring?

  21. “Comment by Anon on November 18, 2009 1:56 pm
    “They are certainly not interested in improvement of conditions. And they won’t change anything either. ”
    If they weren`t interested in improvement of conditions, then why did they speak out about abuses in the CoS?”

    You miss something here, maybe it’s the distance, but they did not “speak out” about abuses. They were approached and collected up by specific people whose purpose is the destruction of the Church of Scientology. Like willing puppets they got themselves shoved in front of a camera/microphone to say certain things that fit in a prepared campaign. Why would they be such willing dupes?

    Rathbun for example has an obvious goal: Aside from running his own version of “Scientology technology” he tries to cover up his responsibility in own failures, violent acts and destruction of evidence. It was that type of damage he created and it were those violations of Church policy that got him removed from the Church organization many years ago. Now he thinks he has a means to relieve himself of his guilt by FULLY blaming it on others. That seems easier but is a sure way of self-destruction. History is full dupes like this and there will always be some. Gosh, the majority in a whole country can turn into such type of person, right?

    – L

  22. “They are certainly not interested in improvement of conditions. And they won’t change anything either. ”

    If they weren`t interested in improvement of conditions, then why did they speak out about abuses in the CoS?

  23. and that includes your other dot info site. you have articles about “anonymous” at each site.

  24. “Do I? Where?”

    …have you even read your site?

  25. I would be very interested in seeing actual answer to the direct questions, if this is possible.

    for example, was the managedment structure aware of the plan to reveal scobee’s personal confessional data, or was this done without the awarenwss of mangement?

    One could assume that dm read the article- and it is still in print and on the web, does that mean that even dm will support such behavior?

    lastly- if all was as claimed (regarding allegations of punishing or vengeful behavior), this is unfolding exactly as one would expect, with people waiting for years to come forward.

    and, was mentioned earlier, the cos certainly did hold on to their auditing confessions, for years, it would seem, and had no hesitation to use it.

  26. Do I? Where?

    – L

  27. just a quick thought… you say “Labeling is just a propaganda effort to dehumanize a group.”

    … don’t you have whole articles dedicated to those “criminals”, “anonymous”?

  28. Milper, I think we have a different understanding of what “it” is. You seem to be biased towards anything that harms the Church of Scientology and defend it.

    There is no “the CoS”, or “the Church”. Labeling is just a propaganda effort to dehumanize a group. There are living people with ideas, goals and personal, sometimes very diverse, opinions that make up the Church of Scientology. Some of them produce a magazine called Freedom, others donate for its production and distribute because they want their voice and their viewpoint spread as well.

    What I see is reporting of what actually happened in an effort to increase understanding of the motives of those former members. They were losers, they were kicked out, and were given the opportunity to start anew again. Five years later they get picked up and put in front of a camera or microphone, and start spreading the most incredible but well rehearsed bullshit you ever heard of. What mindset must someone have to engage in such self-destructive acts? How deep do you have to fall to play such a game? They are certainly not interested in improvement of conditions. And they won’t change anything either.

    – L

  29. But then how did it happen this time? Are you saying that it WASN’T sanctioned by the CoS?

  30. “Does that sound as thought that policy was followed with Ms. Scobee?”

    No, that sound like squirrel policy that has been canceled.

    Am I right?

    – L

  31. Addition to last, quote from the PR: ” If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized.”

    Does that sound as thought that policy was followed with Ms. Scobee?

  32. “The technique of proving utterances false is called ‘DEAD AGENTING’.”

    But that’s only one side of it- the goal is to render the agent, effectively, dead.

    Because you’re forgetting PR24, HANDLING HOSTILE CONTACTS/DEAD AGENTING, which says, in part,
    ” This is correct procedure:

    1. Spot who is attacking us.

    2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our
    own professionals, not outside agencies.

    3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of
    them.

    4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the
    attackers to the press.”

    But perhaps you would prefer the term “ad hom” attacks?

  33. That still fails to address the point. Is it okay to reveal such information, no matter how justified you feel to do so? And if it is truly okay, within scientology, to do so, what makes them better than their detractors? Because they didn’t do it first?

    Recall that Hubbard’s “Intelligence Book List” included “The Art of War”, upon which the concept of dead agenting was built. Of course, if you have read it, you’d recognize the purpose, as reflected in HCO Policy Letter of 21 Nov 72, which read, in part, “The technique of proving utterances false [comes from] the first book of Chinese espionage [Sun Tzu, The Art of War]. When the enemy agent gives false data, those who believed him but now find it false kill him – or at least cease to believe him.”

    The result is what was called, in the book (which I recommed), a “Dead Agent”, or an agent that is no longer able to operate for any reason.

    Your example is a very mild, although relatively accurate one (in which it is insinuated that the parent is to blame), but there are clearly varying degrees possible.

    May I assume that you have read LRH memo of 2 Dec 69, “Covert Intelligence: Data Collecting”?

  34. Dead Agenting is covered in PR Series 18, “Handling Black Propaganda”, and means:

    “The technique of proving utterances false is called ‘DEAD AGENTING’.”

    …proving utterances false…

    “This consists of disproving utterly the false statement with documents or demonstration or display.”

    …disproving… the false statement…

    Get it?

    – L

  35. Woah. No, Milper, what Freedom Magazine writes is at least not made up. Contrary to what she sold to the newspapers in an effort to subject many scientologists she never met to public witch hunting.

    Dead agenting, by the way, is something else. See my earlier example here:

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/whats-wrong-with-those-aussie-politicians-australian-politician-duped-again-into-waffling-against-scientology/#comment-5176

    – L

  36. Speaking of her reasons for not speaking out… See what happened when she did? She was right to be afraid. The CoS held on to her secret for seven years- held on, but remembered. And once she spoke out, as she surely knew they would, the CoS trotted out her secrets to expose them. Is that not in line with the “dead agenting” concepts?

  37. Ignore, for a hot sec, the many factors that would cause one to stay silent (there are many), why is it okay, again, to reveal such information to millions of people? Does that sound ethical to you? Can you possible condone this behavior?

  38. As for sources. The Freedom people in Clearwater wrote this:
    “She was originally removed from Church management ranks in 2002, in no small part for repeated extramarital affairs—even including the later seduction of and sexual affair with a staff member she pretended to counsel, which is among the most egregious violations of Scientology ethics. Moreover, she did this in a counseling room while already on the Rehabilitation Project Force.”

    She left three years after. I think that were enough chances for her to come clean. She chose not to. That’s fine. But coming along whining about it seven years later is just lame.

    – L

  39. Was it a single person that decided to release this personal detail of her life? A single person that wrote, approved and released the article? A single person that decided to tell the world that she committed an infidelity in her marriage? Or was does “scientology” have to approve such actions?

    In other words, can anyone release such personal information, or did the CoS as a whole do it? Either answer doesn’t seem very good.

    What’s more- aren’t scientologists supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard? Or is it okay to do something simply because something was done to them? What’s more, she never attacked the individuals that attacked her- they got personal. Is that seriously okay with you?

    And, what’s more, why is it okay to discuss private information about an enemy, but not to assist the parents of the deceased Australian soldier?

  40. You have a strange understanding of this. Scooby-Doo is mocking the whole group of former friends and spreads outright lies about them. Mocking her is probably too harmless as an appropriate reaction.

    This is not some ominous “scientology” mocking her, these are people, individuals with real blood running in their bodies, whom she betrayed and about whom she spreads lies.

    – L

  41. Would appreciate a non-scientology source for your statement, if one exists. How is it okay with you that, regardless of the WAY that the information was obtained, that scientology used that information to mock her, and only after she became critical?

  42. ” Comment by Milper the duck on November 17, 2009 10:40 pm
    like with Amy Scobee, who, after publicly criticizing the organization had not only her confidential confessions released, but has been publicly mocked as “The Adultress” in publications released by the group?”

    What “confidential confessions”?

    You mean the fact that she was f***ing around with another man while married was “invisible” to others? Nope, it got her booted from the organization, didn’t it. It is neither confidential nor part of a confession (or may be, but that is irrelevant) that she was/is/will be an Adulteress.

    Milper the duck, you are parroting baseless allegations either because you don’t know any better or you give a flying f*ck about the truth. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are wasting my time with this and make yourself a fool.

    – L

  43. like with Amy Scobee, who, after publicly criticizing the organization had not only her confidential confessions released, but has been publicly mocked as “The Adultress” in publications released by the group?

    Or does that protection only apply to current members or potential liabilities?

  44. “I wonder if the recent decision to cooperate would reverse the previous decision to not provide documents relating to the suicide of the young soldier.”

    I don’t think so. No matter what the a-holes say: no auditing information will be “shared” with anyone not authorized.

    – L

  45. re your link,

    I wonder if the recent decision to cooperate would reverse the previous decision to not provide documents relating to the suicide of the young soldier.

    that’s not an attack, I am glad to see that the cos is cooperating!

  46. :would you like a hand?”

    I think I can cope (and I think I my clients expect me not to outsource things). But thanks for the offer.

    I’m going to be incommunicado for the next 2-3 hrs. Those letters would be interesting.

    – L

  47. “How good are you in brushing up dull photographs?”

    Only decent, I’m afraid, but would be very happy to hack away at a few for you, if you would like. I use photoshop, which has done me well in the past. would you like a hand?

    anywho, I recently exchanged emails with mark t, who was trying to contact the senator, to try and get his story. we’ll see what comes up, if anything.

  48. The downside of being self-employed is that it requires more discipline….

    How good are you in brushing up dull photographs?

    Oh, more to the matter at hand:

    http://kalgoorlie.igwn.com.au/index.php/news/prime-news/scientology-church-defends-criminal-allegations,208751

    “tabled letters”. I understand in Aussie-Land this means he put some letters on the table there. If you could find a copy of them on the net, I’d be interested.

    – L

  49. not bored at all, quite entertained.

    what do you need a hand with?

    anywho, I have no follow up questions.

  50. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 4:28 pm
    perfectly. so you agree that it is possible that the accusations are valid, but believe it to be rather unlikely. is that accurate?”

    Are you bored or something (I could need a hand or two right now)?

    Yes, that looks accurate.

    – L

  51. perfectly. so you agree that it is possible that the accusations are valid, but believe it to be rather unlikely. is that accurate?

  52. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 4:14 pm”

    The answer again is: I don’t know. I do know from personal experience that mistakes are being made. If you ask me for a probability that the accusations have validity I’d say: sure there is a probability that accusations are valid. And I am even more sure that whatever really happened could have been sorted out 10 or 20 years ago. So I have some doubt too that any of those accusations are appropriately presented.

    Clear?

    – L

  53. once again, yes or no, if you are able, is there a possibility that the accisations (there were many, if you read his sppech) are valid? is it at all possible?

    “mistakes happen” is not an answer to that question.

  54. “I am the first one to agree that mistakes happen but they are not sorted out with publicity stunts like this. ” see above.

    Publicity stunts and abuse of parliamentary privilege (read: not being legally accountable for anything said in his setting) is counterproductive and bar the sensitive exchange of communication. Maybe that was the purpose.

    – L

  55. so you really can’t say that it is possible that the cos was wrong, can you?

  56. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 3:22 pm
    it’s hard to tell,”

    Exactly. I am sure if there is the slightest possibility that the Church has any role in this we all will hear about it. Currently however, the accusations are outdated, not founded and have not been reviewed by unbiased and proper authorities or courts. So, until then, we only can throw opinions or hints at each other.

    And I really need to get back to work.

    Bye,
    L

  57. Right, right. And also, I confess, I have an allergy against mindless know-best.

    Isn’t time for you to go to bed, Anon?

    – L

  58. “What is used in the purification program is potassium gluconate, which is not poisonous nor can it be lethally overdosed. ”

    It can be dangerous for children, if the child has an allergy to potassium gluconate.

  59. it’s hard to tell, but are you saying that there is a chance that the org, or possibly those employed by it, and other than her father, can be to blame? and the other accusations, are those slightly possible as well?

  60. Anon,

    “How do you want to know that he left his own daughter unguarded in his family`s home?”

    You are right. Certainly it is possible that she took the lethal poison right there, with him watching her die. Or he even fed it to her. How could I assume that it was an accident. It is certainly possible that is was not an accident. As I said, I can’t wait to see the police investigating this.

    – L

  61. did not hubbard say on 30 May 1974, in PR Series 24 (“Handling Hostile Contacts/Dead Agenting”) “If there will be a long-term threat, you are to immediately evaluate and originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly that they will be ostracized.”?

    also, you have not yet answered the question, instead you have only proposed another possible scenario. is it at all, even a teeny bit, possible that the accusations are valid?

    also, is it at all, even a smidgen, possible that the 2,500 lawsuits filed by the cos had any part to play in the IRS decision? I mean, you have only what you were told, unless you were with the IRS at the time. is is at all possoble that there was some form of coercion?

  62. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 2:12 pm
    was my question invalid, and deserving of deletion? I asked only why scientology has to consistently resort to lawsuits to enter countries that have expressed a preference to not have them there?”

    I did not delete anything. But here is a response: It is not true that the Church of Scientology, to defend the religion of Scientology, has to resort to lawsuits. Countries like Taiwan, Slovakia, South Africa and Sweden, for example, recognized the Church of Scientology as bona fide religious organization once they thoroughly reviewed the Church’s application. But you are right, there are times when survival is only possible when resorting to the legal system. Isn’t that what it’s for? Should Scientologists not have the right to claim their rights using the judicial system?

    – L

  63. “Does he try to divert the attention from his neglect as a parent that caused his 2.5 years old to swallow a lethal drug when unguarded in the family’s home?”

    How do you want to know that he left his own daughter unguarded in his family`s home?
    The transcript of the Senator`s speech only says this:

    His second daughter, Kirsty, who was 2½, died after ingesting potassium chloride—a substance used as part of a so-called purification program run by the organisation. Under the direction of Scientology executives, Paul says he perjured himself to the police, and during the coronial inquest, in order to protect the organisation. Under incredible pressure he agreed to lie because he was scared he would be heavily punished by Scientology if he told the truth. It is a decision he regrets to this day.”

  64. ” Comment by Anon on November 17, 2009 3:06 pm

    How do you know that he is lying? Maybe his particular org used potassium chloride by mistake.”

    Anon, your uncritical attitude is famous by now. Step back and take a broader view.

    – L

  65. How do you know that he is lying? Maybe his particular org used potassium chloride by mistake.

  66. ” Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 2:40 pm
    how many lawsuit were filed by the cos against the IRS before the “IRS concluded: That the Church of Scientology is organized “exclusively for religious and charitable purposes.””?”

    Zero. They were all withdrawn before 1991 and only in 1993 the IRS issued their decree that recognized the Church of Scientology all fully tax exempt. The IRS reviewed all church documents – ALL finance documents of the Church – for over TWO years before they came out with their decision to recognize the Church of Scientology as bona fide and tax exempt.

    Got duped? Read the truth on ScientologyMyths.info!

    :-)

    -L

  67. “Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 2:35 pm”

    “what did hubbard call that? dead agenting?”

    No. Dead agenting is this:

    Claim: she “died after ingesting potassium chloride—a substance used as part of a so-called purification program run by the organisation. ”

    Response: Potassium chloride is a poisonous medical drug and fertilizer. It is not used in the purification program. What is used in the purification program is potassium gluconate, which is not poisonous nor can it be lethally overdosed. So the question is: why is this guy lying? Does he try to divert the attention from his neglect as a parent that caused his 2.5 years old to swallow a lethal drug when unguarded in the family’s home? Or did she die from something else and the whole claim is not true altogether? How come this drug was in his home in the first place?

    Get it? Dead agenting is based on truth.

    – L

    PS: I can’t wait to see the police investigating this!

  68. how many lawsuit were filed by the cos against the IRS before the “IRS concluded: That the Church of Scientology is organized “exclusively for religious and charitable purposes.””?

  69. “When did you ever admit that a mistake happened?”

    I’m looking, anon, but have not found anything significant quite yet.

    “who publicly refused to meet Church representatives and sort out his concerns”

    i’m quite sure he had his concerns. did you read the smear press release that the cos put out? interesting that they focused on attacking him, rather than the issues. what did hubbard call that? dead agenting?

  70. “Anon, your uncritical attitude is famous by now. Step back and take a broader view.”

    but was he incorrect? your ad hom would seem to indicate that he may be accurate, as resorting to a personal attack tends to indicate a lack of atguments. there were very specific allegations in his speech, and i’m assuming that you read the transcript. age aside, is it possible that those allegations are actually true?

  71. was my question invalid, and deserving of deletion? I asked only why scientology has to consistently resort to lawsuits to enter countries that have expressed a preference to not have them there?

  72. “I am the first one to agree that mistakes happen but they are not sorted out with publicity stunts like this. ”

    When did you ever admit that a mistake happened?
    All we hear from you is that CoS is flawless, expanding like never before, David Miscavige is an angel, etc. and that anyone, who speaks out against abuses is an apostate, liar, criminal etc.

  73. Meanwhile, read this:

    – L

  74. “Comment by Anon on November 17, 2009 1:37 pm”

    Anon, your uncritical attitude is famous by now. Step back and take a broader view.

    – L

  75. bigdaddy, the allegations are 15 or 20 something years old and the story is that they have been turned over to the police. Study persecution of minorities and you see the same totalitarian pattern there. This is obviously a big PR fluff of some dupe who spoke to an empty room, presumably to avoid any questioning, and who publicly refused to meet Church representatives and sort out his concerns. That makes it matter for the proper authorities to sort out whether this guy’s immunity can be lifted for this ugly act of witch hunting.

    I am the first one to agree that mistakes happen but they are not sorted out with publicity stunts like this.

    I have to go back to work. Talk to you later.

    – L

  76. tl;dr
    since i doubt that you even tried to honestly adress any point that was brought up by the Senator.

  77. so if you’re able to generate an unbiased opinion, would you say that there is a -possibility- , no matter how slight, that any of the alligations are true?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos