Ethics Gone Astray
Suppressive groups are defined as those which try to to destroy Scientology, or which specialize in injuring or killing, or destroying their cases, or those which exist for the suppression of humanity. L. Ron Hubbard The psychologist accuses others of sexual offenses, while this is what his whole profession is about. [...] Doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and the government form a closed clique. [...] Groups like psychologists, who state as fact that all people are criminal, naturally are dramatizing their own tendencies. L. Ron Hubbard
Who Suppresses Whom?
The "worst" that can happen to a Scientologist is to be barred from Scientology and declared to be a "suppressive person." Naturally, from the viewpoint of Scientology, this excommunication is, in reality, something which the person has done to himself through his own conduct. He has virtually destroyed his own path to total spiritual freedom. With the "suppressive person declare", the person is simultaneously declared to be "mentally ill" and is categorized into the same mental constitution as Adolf Hitler. That is not explicitly stated, but implicitly. With that they have put a picture into the heads of Scientologists which is not so easy to shake.
[By a suppressive person] is meant a person who tries to suppress or do in a business or group which strives to improve itself. A suppressive person suppresses other people in his vicinity. This is a person whose conduct can be counted upon to have disastrous effects. "Suppressive person" is another designation for an "Anti-Social Personality." 
Well-known, phenomenal examples of such personalities are, of course, Napoleon and Hitler. [...] But in the light of such prominent positions in history, we neglect the less prominent examples, and are not aware that such personalities exist among us, quite commonly, here and today, for the most part undetected.
In the course of its history, Scientology has continued to officially declare these people to be "suppressive", and publicly let it be known that these people have reached the highest levels of enlightenment in Scientology.
One of the recent prominent victims was Jeff Walker, a former "case supervisor" who was well-known and appreciated by many Scientologists. How he left Scientology was described by Andre Tabayoyon, a former member of the "Sea Organization" and staff member of the openly fortified Scientology base in Hemet, California, in April of 1994, in a written, sworn testimony.
When it was apparent that a dissatisfied member was attempting to leave, we were instructed to call private detectives who were in the employ of Scientology attorneys to take care of this problem. As soon as the private detectives were informed, they took over command. The private detectives gave us instructions. When a private detective was first involved, our assignment consisted solely of functioning as the eyes and ears of the detective. We were sent to places where the members who were bailing out were likely to go.
As soon as we would find the fleeing staff member, we called in the private detectives. [They] took over the rest.
I was personally involved in the efforts to retrieve Sinar Parman, Jeff Walker and Julie Fisher. The attempts to bring back Sinar Parman and Julie Fisher were successful. We did not have success in bringing Jeff Walker back to Gold Base [the true Scientology nerve center]. As soon as he got away from the base, he got in contact with the California Highway Patrol. He informed the Highway Patrol that he did not wish to go back to the Hemet Base. So that the Scientologists at the Hemet Base would understand his position, Jeff went back to the Hemet Base under escort of the Highway Patrol, packed his things, and announced in an unmistakable way that he wished to leave, and that he would take any necessary measure to ensure his freedom. He left the Hemet Base under escort of the Highway Patrol.
Children in the Sea Organization
This came to light in early 1994, in review of the various practices of Scientology in their dealings with children whose parents were members of the Sea Organization. The children of members of the Sea Organization were entrusted to day care centers while their parents were at work (normally from nine in the morning til about eleven at night). This practice was revealed in the sworn testimony of Mary Tabayoyon, who was a member of the Scientology elite for over twenty years, and according to her own testimony, worked in the household of Mary Sue and L. Ron Hubbard, among other places.
On November 6, 1989, Flag Order 293 was published for those members of the Sea Organization who worked in the western United States, a management instruction that had to have been a shock to parents:
A long-standing portion of the schedule for parents has been a daily hour of family time [one hour which a person could spend with his children]. And it has been determined that a group of parents still take this hour every day, even though it is not part of the schedule which has been laid out for the organization.
Thorough research has proven that there is no reference by LRH [L. Ron Hubbard] which states that a member of the Sea Organization should take an hour every day family time. Besides that, it has been determined that an interruption of this sort during production [working hours] is harmful to production, and that it violates the LRH references to the maintenance of the condition of the org[anization].
This publication should not imply that the relationship between you and your children is unproductive for the Sea Organization. But to spend time with your child, an hour a day, does not only affect production [...], but leaves very little time to create a valuable product [in the area of marriage and children] and to produce.
It would be very much more worthwhile if you saw to [it that much good work was performed at] your post, and rewarded yourself and your family with a day off, which could be used to create good communication and production [in the areas of marriage and children].
This is a better use of production time. [...]
Besides this, measures are in progress which will see to it that the Sea Organization's children and cadets are taken care of better and more efficiently, so that they may be competent members of the Sea Organization in the future.
In the Sea Organization it is a tradition to have a day off once every two weeks, provided that one has "produced", or worked, sufficiently, and the labor statistics have risen.
Is that supposed to be the way of the future? Marriage and family time are to be "production time"? Love on command? In the best case, contact with your children every two weeks?
In this way, natural family ties are completely unhinged, the foundation of every civilized society is laid to waste.
Are Abortions in the Plan of the Day?
In the upper levels of management in Scientology, abortions seem to be a given. Mrs. Tabayoyon was stationed during her last eight years as a member of Scientology at Hemet, California. According to her statement and the statements of other former members, that is where the true nerve center of Scientology is. Mrs. Tabayoyon stated:
On September 28, 1986, Guillaume Leservre, the leading Director International, published an order which was mandatory for all members of the Sea Organization. Inside of the Sea Organization, these orders were called flag orders. On September 28, 1986, Flag Order Nr. 3905 forbade members of the Sea Organization to have any more children. The reason for the order was that the Sea Organization simply did not have the time, money and resources to properly raise children. If members of the Sea Organization would not follow this order, then
they were to be transferred to lower organizations until the children were at least six years old - they would retain their status as members of the Sea Organization - not in any organization, but, according to management instruction Nr. 1127 of November 21, 1989, in "small, failing Class IV organizations" (Scientology Class IV organizations include those in Hamburg, Munich, Basel or Zurich). Mrs. Tabayoyon was very clear as to what that would mean:
In a failing Class IV organization, the banished member of the Sea Organization would have to struggle alone and try to raise her child on the negligible allowance which the staff members of the failing Class IV organization receive.
Apparently abortions were regularly scheduled.
A friend of mine, Betty Hardin, who worked in the finance department of Golden Era Productions, told me that she had driven pregnant women from the base to Riverside, California, so that they could have abortions performed. Almost every week for a year, she drove women to the Planned Parenthood Center in Riverside so they could get their abortions and necessary follow-up visits. She said that it was a routine. When the women got back, they were sent to ethics [department]. [...] I asked Betty how many women she had actually brought to Riverside to have abortions performed. She didn't want to tell me, but the way she talked, it must have been quite a number. I asked her, quite conservatively, "Was it more than 20?" She swung her arm and said very decisively, "Oh, yes!"
Betty also told me how she finally got out of being the driver anymore, because it was painful to her that anti-abortion activists who were often outside of the Planned Parenthood Center saw her so many times that they came to recognize her as the one who drove women in to have their abortions.
At the abortion she had received, Mrs. Tabayoyon was instructed to give a false address, so it would not be obvious how many women from the Scientology headquarters were coming to have abortions. This could have led to bad public relations... how things went for her, she told in few words:
On the day after my return from the abortion, I felt weak and had pains and cramps. I suggested that I be assigned to light duty, by which I meant, if I would be able to perform it.
My supervisor, Megan Rae, refused this, and, instead, gave me a work goal which a whole lot of people would have had to work on for many days to achieve. I tried to let her know that this would be an impossible assignment and that her order must have been a joke. I learned shortly afterwards that she was bitterly serious. My public protest was answered with a coarse threat, "If you think you are going to use this abortion situation to dramatize inefficiency so that you do not make your goal, then I will see to it that you get a Committee of Evidence." A Committee of Evidence is the strongest ethics measure that someone can take against you.
Mrs. Tabayoyon then told of ten cases known to her, but whose names she did not mention in order to protect those concerned from punishment by the Scientology headquarters. What was most interesting were the remarks concerning the "failing" Class IV organizations, something which Scientology does not make reference to at its public meetings. At those, one only hears about the magnificence of management and expansion into infinity. From the internal telex traffic, Mrs. Tabayoyon presents the telex of an Ethics Officer from December 30, 1989, that refers to Karen Barter, the former Karen Jentzsch (ex-wife of the President of the Church of Scientology, Heber Jentzsch. It reads, shortly and sweetly, "Dear Sue, do you know anything about Karen Barter in regards to handling her wish to have another child?" In other words: in regards to deterring her from this wish.
The fact that married couples let such things happen to them shows the power of Scientology is able to use on its staff members. One of the forces behind this drive, according to Mrs. Tabayoyon, was Marc Yager, one of the highest management powers of Scientology. Yager is reported to have stated:
we bear the responsibility for the expansion of Scientology and the liberation of humanity on our shoulders.
The highest level of management has determined that we, at this high level, have neither the time nor the resources necessary for the raising of children. Having children is regarded to be an undermining of our production and our goals. It leads to ethics situations. Ethics situations mean an offense against Scientology. An ethics situation takes place if a Scientologist does something that diverts him from the expansion of Scientology.
Suppressive = Insane
In 1970, Hubbard wrote:
All characteristics which can be classified as those of a "suppressive person", are actually those of a insane person.
Moreover, a suppressive person is someone,
[...] whose daily activities consist of making others smaller, less capable, less powerful. This person would not like it if things went even a little bit better for someone else. Actually a suppressive has a total, terrible fear of anybody becoming more powerful.
In such a case the Potential Trouble Source [someone who is in contact with a suppressive] will have no success in handling this person. Therefore the answer is to break the connection.
Besides that, L. Ron Hubbard diagnosed that between 15 and 20 percent of the world's population is insane:
Apparently something like 15 to 20 percent of the human race is insane - or in any case an essentially higher percentage than had been presumed.
The truly insane do not necessarily act visibly insane. We're not dealing here with the notorious psychiatric cases who stare into space for years, or scream for days. Those who constantly behave in a socially acceptable manner and knowingly commit crimes prove to be much more malevolent than the insane one reads about in the psychiatric textbooks.. [...]
Since only about 20 percent are insane, and since the ones that have worked in the area of mental health are themselves predominantly insane, a person comes into an altogether bad reputation.
The insane run around freely, ruining everything, and respectable people think that it is "human," "unavoidable," or even a "bad childhood."
A Scientologist may have no contact with a person who has been designated as suppressive. If he does it anyway, then he is designated a "potential trouble source" and runs the risk, if he does not break off his contact, of himself being declared to be suppressive. He is designated as a "potential trouble source" because he could be a possible nuisance to the organization.
Whether such a breaking off of contact is rational or not, what is decisive is the following: If a person becomes more capable through Scientology, then his ability to recognize which acquaintances would benefit him and which would not would also increase. Because of the prohibition of contact with the person, he will never be able to form a balanced picture of the situation since he has not experienced both sides of the story. The official Scientology [organization] has taken away the work of thinking from him; he must trust them blindly. This is, of course, another instance of Scientology's weakening of the critical abilities within their own ranks.
The analysis of this method leads to the conclusion that the average Scientologist will practically never make the personal acquaintance of a critic of Scientology. What he learns from the media has a slant put on it (for him), and he is not able to examine what an individual member experiences or has experienced, since the "declaration of suppressiveness" deprives him of a communications partner in the more serious cases.
If Scientology denies its members contact with a person whom they have declared to be "suppressive," are they not also indirectly saying that they mistrust the personal ability of the individual?
Be that as it may, the Scientology directives are clear:
Failure to disconnect from a suppressive person, or refusal to disconnect, not only locks out the Potential Trouble Source [from the gains of his spiritual development], but contributes to the support of the suppressive, and this in itself is a suppressive activity. And it must be described as such.
What does this paragraph say which is, interestingly, left out of the widely distributed book about "Scientology ethics?" If the Scientologist does not disconnect, he himself is guilty of a suppressive action, and is placed on the hit list. For people whose entire circle of friends, or the majority thereof, exist in the Scientology community, this means losing their entire social network in the event that they were to depart.
Declared "Fair Game" - Degenerated Ethics
On December 23, 1965, L. Ron Hubbard stated in an official instruction:
A suppressive person or group becomes "fair game."
By FAIR GAME is meant: may no longer be protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or by the laws of Scientologists.
The dwellings, possessions, abodes, and residences of persons who are active in the suppression of Scientology or of Scientologists are outside the protection of Scientology ethics, except if they are later acquitted by the ethics [department] or by an amnesty.
That was somewhat more moderate than only several months before, when Hubbard wrote the following to the high-ranking former Scientologist, Vaughn Young, on March 7, 1965:
By FAIR GAME is meant: has no kind of rights with regards to self, in regards to possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence, or be punished for any action that he has committed against a suppressive person or group, as long as this person or group is "fair game."
Three years later, a new Hubbard directive appeared:
The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME shall cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any ethics instruction. This causes bad public relations.
This [directive] does not cancel any instructions as to the handling or treatment of an SP [Suppressive Person].
By that, one would think, the matter is done with. The former chairman of the board of the Religious Technology Center, Vicky Aznaran, who really would have known, had a completely different opinion.
She mentioned in her sworn testimony in 1994 that someone who has been declared to be a suppressive person by Scientology is once again regarded as "fair game." Such people may be:
harassed, injured, harmed or destroyed, with no regard to truth, honesty, or legal rights. [...] It is acceptable to lie, deceive, and engage in illegal activities when one is dealing with a "suppressive person."
The above actions may be taken by Scientologists with no fear of internal disciplinary measures being taken.
Mrs. Aznaran goes into further detail:
This practice or instruction is sometimes called the "fair game" instruction. In Scientology jargon, a person who has been "declared" is understood to have been declared to be a Suppressive Person (SP). This means that the person is "fair game." The "fair game" instruction was published in the 1960's. It was never declared to be invalid. For reasons of public relations a piece was written which allegedly declared "fair game" to be invalid. However, that document also states that the method of handling people who have been declared has not changed. In reality, the alleged removal of "fair game" is, in the best case, a matter of semantics. Enemies of Scientology are treated as "fair game."
Because of my position and the reports which regularly crossed my desk, I know that during my entire presidency of RTC "fair game" actions against enemies were daily routine. Apart from the legal tactics described below , the "fair game" activities included break-ins, libel, upsetting the companies of the enemy, espionage, harassment, misuse of confidential communications in the folders of community members and so forth.
Ethics Gone Astray
- Hubbard Policy Letter of June 29, 1968,
Enrollment in Suppressive Groups. [Return]
- Hubbard article of September 15, 1981,
The Criminal Mind. [Return]
- L. Ron Hubbard: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. [Return]
- Hubbard article of September 27, 1966,
The Anti-Social Personality. [Return]
- Scientologists should ask the following question: How is it that people who are "clear" or above (therefore free from their subconscious) are declared "suppressive"? Don't the methods of Scientology work as predicted? Have these people, in the event they are not staff, given out hundreds of thousands of dollars in vain, without having been able to partake in the true gains of Scientology? Perhaps it has more to do with keeping these people out of contact with Scientologists. Is the purpose of these declarations the silencing of critical voices? [Return]
- Andre Tabayoyon was a Scientologist for twenty years and worked personally for L. Ron Hubbard, among others. [Return]
- Hubbard article of November 28, 1970, Psychosis. [Return]
- L. Ron Hubbard: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. [Return]
- Hubbard article of November 28, 1970, Psychosis. [Return]
- The following could happen to you: one of your business colleagues is introduced to Scientology. After a few months he is enthusiastically talking about his courses in the office. Now you tell him that you have been a Scientologist, that you left, and that you have officially been declared "suppressive."
What does your business colleague now have to do? Does he quit, or, if he is your boss, does he give you your notice of dismissal? [Return]
- Hubbard article of September 10, 1983,
PTS-ness and Disconnection. [Return]
- Hubbard Policy Letter of December 23, 1965, Suppressive Acts. [Return]
- Hubbard Policy Letter of October 21, 1968,
Cancellation of Fair Game. [Return]
- The legal tactics mentioned by Vicky Aznaran refer to a statement by L. Ron Hubbard which has already been mentioned (see page 141): "The purpose of the lawsuit is more to harass and discourage, instead of to win. [...] The law can easily be used to annoy, and extensive inconvenience [...] will generally be sufficient to bring about the professional downfall of a person. If possible, of course, ruin him entirely." For Scientologists, this quotation can be found in the older editions of the books by L. Ron Hubbard, in volume 2, page 157, to be exact. This unpleasant article has simply been left out of the 1991 edition, without giving the member any indication that this (and other?) changes have been made. [Return]