I'm something of a fan of folk music and I'm fortunate enough to have the soundtrack to a series called Sharpe. One song in particular which I love is "Johhny is gone for a soldier," so much so that I went looking for the lyrics.
As with msot folk songs though, there are many variations and it seemed impossible to find the ones that corresponded to the version I was listening to.
Still, there were enough different versions to put the lyrics together, along with my own powers of observation and so to save folks the hassle of figuring out the lyrics (as I did) I present the lyrics.
Aren't I nice? ^_^
---
Here I sit on Butternut Hill, Who would blame me cry my fill ? And ev'ry tear would turn a mill; Johnny is gone for a soldier.
Chorus: Shule, shule, shule agra. His nets and creel are laid away. 'Til he comes back, I'll rue the day. Johnny is gone for a soldier.
With pipes and drums he marched away. The others came, he couldn't stay. 'Til he comes back, I'll rue the day. Johnny is gone for a soldier.
Chorus: Shule, shule, shule agra. His nets and creel are laid away. 'Til he comes back, I'll rue the day. Johnny is gone for a soldier.
[Instrumental]
I'll sell me' rook. I'll sell me' reel. I'll even sell my spinning wheel. To buy my love a coat of steel. Johnny is gone for a soldier.
Chorus: Shule, shule, shule agra. His nets and creel are laid away. 'Til he comes back, I'll rue the day. Johnny is gone for a soldier. ---
I'll do a youtube video later with the tune and said lyrics later, once I'm home from my christmas holiday.
For those that are interested, it was sang by the wonderful John Tams.
The next protest occurs tomorrow. Check out this link for more information.
I'll not be there, sadly. I've managed to (finally) get another job and it's only my second shift so I'd be best working it. I'm going to have to work my arse off just to get back in to my overdraft and once I've done that I need to keep it high enough to cover the bank charges that will be coming out.
*Sigh* At least the student loan will help once that comes through. That wont be until early October-ish though, I think.
Back to the relevant stuff though, I intend on attending either the October protest or the November one (depending on funds and whatnot). I also intend on filming it.
This will hopefully lead in to a documentary so I'm going to have to get in touch with people for interviews but that's for a later time, methinks.
In the meantime though, I've got housework to do, so that will all have to wait.
For those that require further proof of Fair Game in use, I'd like to refer you to the following video.
As you can see, the policy is still alive and well.
On a related note, I've recently started work on a forum to support victims of Fair Game and to help people trade information on Scientology, including information on protests and the like.
It's up and running so keep checking back as more information is added. As I go, I'll be mirroring articles from here on the forum too.
"So Sambo beat the bitch!" - Sarah Palin on Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton Category: News and Politics
[Found on the interwebs. I was going to interject with my own comments but I found I didn't really have anything constructive to add. Brought to you, with many thanks, from "Paradise"]
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama's win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat's primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.
"It was kind of disgusting," Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the "lower 48" about life near the North Pole.
Then, almost with a sigh, she added, "But that's just Alaska."
Racial and ethnic slurs may be "just Alaska" and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.
Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N'-Fetch-It, "darkie musical" swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska's aboriginal people as "Artic Arabs" – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful "mukluks" along with the totally unimaginative "fucking Eskimo's," according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.
But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We're talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.
No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it's in their genetic code. So much for McCain's pledge of a "high road" campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.
< –––– >
It's not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that "all circuits are busy" or numbers just wouldn't ring. I should think a state that's been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.
On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they're afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.
"The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here," an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. "It's corrupt and arrogant. They're all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.
"Once Palin became mayor," he continued, "She became part of that inner circle."
Like most other people interviewed, he didn't want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it's the long winter nights where you don't see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they're under constant danger from "the authorities." As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that's happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.
Alright, that's an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there's ample evidence of Palin's vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.
Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poo-bah's who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.
"People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day," states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.
For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he "intimidated" her.
< –––– >
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are non-partisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.
Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.
"She's doesn't like different opinions and she refuses to compromise," Kilkenny notes. "When she was Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't hers. Worse, ideas weren't evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them."
Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney's reincarnate.
Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a "refund surpluses but borrow for the future" attitude.
According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian's with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.
To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22-million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city's infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer's money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?
For starters, she modelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.
Then Palin spent $1-million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15-million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.
She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5-million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.
For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.
< –––– >
En route to the governor's igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.
"She hated the job," an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. "She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn't figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski" and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn't get appointed.
But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a "reformer."
But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.
"She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids," said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. "I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it's nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you."
Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her "Sarah Barracuda," Kilkenny insists.
Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a "reformer."
And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.
And what has she done since winning the job?
According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state's multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn't that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush's economic policies left the nation.
It may explain why, when asked by reporters including me what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain's running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, "What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?" Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her so that may explain the family tension.
As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. "They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action," the aide said. "She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important."
But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being "anti-pork".
In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.
As for being "ready on day one" to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she's made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, "she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs."
< –––– >
"Palin is a conniving, manipulative, asshole," someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin's tenure in Alaska state and local politics.
"She's a bigot, a racist and a liar," is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.
"Juneau is a small town, everybody knows everyone else," he adds. "These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain's rheumy eyes. Why do I know they're true? Because everyone who isn't aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way."
"Sambo beat the bitch" may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.
For those that protest Scientology, it can be a frightening experience. They tend to have a lot of muscle on hand, both muscularly and litigiously.
Confronting these people can seem confusing and frightening and this post aims to help as a reference to what you can do.
At the point where I hit "publish post" for the first time, this will not be a complete entry. I will be adding to this entry over time as an ever-evolving reference.
Hopefully, with this in hand, you will be better prepared for what they'll try and do to you.
The Contents of this article include: -
1 - Common Arguments against Protester's Activities. 2 - General Advice 3 - Pamphlets for handing out
Note - Where I have referenced news articles, I have opted to mirror them as over time they tend to be taken down from the original source.
1 - OK, first the basics. Expected confrontation types...
This will be a list of expected objections which will likely be perpetrated by Scientologists at your protest. They come in no particular order, being added as I find I need to.
----------------------------
Calling Scientology a "Cult." - News Article Here In May 2008, a young boy faced prosecution for calling Scientology a cult. He had taken part in a peaceful protest, made no threads and had been brought up on that charge alone.
The officer told him that it was down to Section 5 of the Public Order Act; which I have duplicated below.
5 Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)
that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)
that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)
that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)
he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and
(b)
he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
NOTES
Initial Commencement
To be appointed To be appointed: see s 41(1).
Appointment
Appointment: 1 April 1987: see SI 1987/198, art 2, Schedule.
Amendment
Sub-s (4): word in square brackets in para (a) substituted by the Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996, s 1.
Now, pay attention to the part where it says that it is a defence if: "his conduct was reasonable."
It was. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[13]
1. Formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).
Scientology qualifies as all five of these definitions.
Which means that any person has reasonable grounds to call Scientology a Cult. It's official...it IS one. The youth's case was dropped and he was declared innocent. The boy won by citing 1984 judgment given by Mr. Justice Latey in the Family Division of the High Court of Justice of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice of England and Wales, in which Latey called Scientology a "cult" and said it was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". In the actual 1984 judgment made by Judge Latey, he stated: "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious. [...] In my judgement it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. [...] It is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living and relationships with others." Damning words and this provides you all with a precedent. Cite the result of the May 2008 court case and the 1984 ruling of Justice Latey.
----------------------------
"You don't have permission to protest/film here!"
In the US and in the UK, you usually have to give notice of a public demonstration. So long as you've done that, you're good to go. As long as you remain on public property, you're safe. You're also granted Freedom of Expression under human rights laws.
As for filming? You're allowed to film anything in public so long as you are on public property and it is in the public interest. What is public interest and where does this fit in to the law?
In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes, as do Royal Parks (as private land).
Photography of individuals is unrestricted where the subject has a reasonable expectation of being photographed, such as on the street or at a tourist attraction. Photography without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights, however in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes. In addition persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.
OFCOM have also weighed in with this ruling on the actual broadcasting of such footage: -
The Ofcom broadcasting code requires any infringement of privacy to be 'warranted'. Public interest is one justification, where it outweighs the right to privacy. Surreptitious filming is warranted if:
* there is prima facie evidence of a story in the public interest; * there are reasonable grounds to suspect that further evidence could be obtained; and * it is necessary to the credibility and authenticity of the programme.
If footage involves 'vulnerable people' then consent must be obtained unless 'it is warranted to proceed without consent' and an 'appropriate and timely' opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing or incompetence is offered.
So what counts as "Public Interest" exactly? Well, there have been two definitions by teo different organisations.
Definition of the Public Interest (1)
Resolution 129 at the 2001 Annual Delegate Meeting of the National Union of Journalists
1. The Public interest includes a) Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanor. b) Protecting public health and safety. c) Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation. d) Exposing misuse of public funds or other forms of corruption by public bodies. e) Revealing potential conflicts of interest by those in positions of power and influence. f) Exposing corporate greed. g) Exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office. 2. There is a public interest in the freedom of expression itself. 3. In cases involving children, journalists must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of the child.
Definition of the Public Interest (2)
Editors' Code of Practice, 2004 - framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and ratified by the Press Complaints Commission on 28 April 2004
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to: i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety. ii) Protecting public health and safety. iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation. 2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself. 3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served. 4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so. 5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interest of the child.
The full Editors code can be found on the PCC website http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/cop.asp
----------------------------
"You're in contravention of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006!"
So long as you do not use threatening behaviour and language, you're not. According to the original law, anything which protesting any kind of religion could come under this law, but in an amendment by the House of Lords the legislation was limited to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred".
This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
So as long as you're peaceful about it, you're OK.
----------------------------
2 - General Advice
If you have written permission to protest at a particular location, why not get it blown up to the same size as your other placards? That way your right and permission to protest is as clear cut as your "OMGWTF a Cult!" cards It may also be good practise to do the same for any legal precedent citations so that everything is nice and clear. And nothing is clearer than text the size of your own head...
Another good idea is to have pamphlets ready with your rights and all of the above on it.
Also, have a separate set of pamphlets or fliers with information on about the very thing you're protesting. It's no good simply shouting things at a protest. You need to win hearts and minds and you have to do that through informed debate. If anyone asks for information, have it on hand. If you don't you simply look ignorant and it harms the case.
On a related note...know your stuff.
If you look stupid, we all look stupid.
Be well behaved. If you do anything to make yourself look bad, it makes us all look bad and that ultimately harms our case. I know the Scientologists use muscle to harm, harass and frighten us. Sadly they get away with it because they're stealthy and influential. You can't fight on their level so just keep it peaceful.
Don't mention Xenu to Scientologists! I say this because lower level members don't actually believe in Xenu and the alien malarkey. You may already know this but I will reiterate. Lower level members aren't told about Xenu until they've proven themselves and paid enough to get to the highest OT level. This is also because up until this point they will still have enough wits to doubt it when confronted with this story. Only people who have become naive enough to "handle" it are told it and by this point they're willing to lie and do anything for the "church."
So either way members will deny it, some because they genuinely don't believe and others for more cynical reasons. Because the information is withheld from lower level members by higher ones, they can't openly admit the story. It's an unfortunate and ridiculous rut they've got themselves in to but trust me, you will not benefit from mentioning Xenu.
Besides, with their human rights violations and what-not you shouldn't need to. The Xenu thing makes them look funny...which makes them look harmless to the uninformed.
---------------------------------------
3 - Pamphlets
I've prepared a rudimentary flier which spells out the harshest facts about Scientology to be handed out at protests. They're designed to spell out the immediate danger to people that otherwise don't take Scientology seriously or don't care and it doesn't even need to mention their religious beliefs...and so dosn't.
This one is formatted as two A5 fliers on an A4 sheet. Cutting will be involved ^_^
---------
That's all I've got for the moment. If I've missed anything I urge you to let me know. I don't just want corrections, we all need them. We need this information to be accurate so feel free to weigh in and tell me when I screw up and I'll change or add stuff pronto.
I'm sorry if this so far seems a little UK centric. I'm researching and uncovering laws and citations as I go but I come across the UK-based stuff more, at the moment.
Well, that's all from me so far. See you on the other side.
For those that don't know what Godwin's law is As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Whether this is true or not, it has led to overuse of the law's reference. This is because there are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others invented later.
For example, the most often used reference to the law is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.
There is a flaw in this however.
What happens when such a comparison is justified? History does have a habit of repeating itself and if circumstances warrant such a comparison then surely we should take it seriously, instead of scoffing at it because of some inappropriate made-up law?
An organisation like those Germans who must not be named coming back is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. In fact it's pretty easy.
After all, we live in a world where we'd prefer to go about our daily lives than listen to conspiracy theories and whatnot. Admit it, me simply saying "conspiracy theory" fills you with disbelief and the urge to say something sarcastic to me.
Well I wont try to convince you of any such conspiracies, I promise.
Consider this though. Governments and other organisations of various kinds plan things all the time. Some are good and some are criminal. This is an everyday fact. Some people with resources will try and get away with whatever they can to accomplish whatever goals they have in mind.
It's a fact, some people are that heartless and conniving. This applies from the bitch that works in your office, planning to steal your promotion; to plans on a grander scale. We have proof of this having happened throughout history and that brings me back to Godwins law and it's something I'd like you to remember.
The Nazis and everything they did happened. It happened in front of clever folks, just like you and me. The reason it happened is because people are afraid to face up to bad things.
It's a part of who we are.
I know I do it. When that bank statement comes, telling me I'm a lot over my overdraft..I don't want to read it. I simply can't face it.
You've all probably experienced a feeling like that.
Now apply it on a grander scale. I'll make up something instead of referencing a "conspiracy theory." Imagine if a wealthy organisation had made a school ill so that they could provide the antidote and look like heroes? It's never happened (as far as I'm aware).
The truth is, some people are bastards and it's possible that someone cruel enough can come along, amass that kind of influence and power and do it.
You wouldn't want to believe it. It'd be unthinkable. Imagine the dread and fear of knowing that it actually happened? Wouldn't you rather chalk it down to crazy people, call it a "conspiracy" theory and go about with your lives?
Coming back to my point, I wont say that all conspiracy theories are true or false. Each one could be or couldn't be and I'll not even bother trying to tell you which are which.
But bad things do happen, even on large worldly scales, by bad people. If there's even the slightest chance something big and bad could happen, we should listen...carefully.
It's a reasonable enough question, all things considered. I've learned some disturbing things about this group, things that make me wonder why they are allowed to continue to function.
The crux of it is (in case you're not inclined to read all of this) is that the "church" of Scientology is a manipulative, mobster-like organisation solely interested in money which encourages it's members to hurt, kill, and deprive of property those people who disagree with them.
Don't believe me? Read on.
The founder, first of all is a known liar. He invented an honourable and noble past for himself and lied about having been a war hero. He has shown racist attitudes, his diaries telling of china:
"As a Chinaman can not live up to a thing, he always drags it down."and "They smell of all the baths they didnt take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here."
And that was before writing in official Scientology reading:
"Unlike the yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part ... that rocks, trees, walls, etc., can give them attention" and "...so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for the truth, and his emphasis on brutality and savagery... ."
Though in the interest of fairness, text was later changed to refer to Africans as "primitives."
He claimed to have been made a lama and that he had travelled throughout the eastern world learning of Eastern Philosophy. His own diaries contradict this.
As for his own claims of being a "war hero?" (Pulled from wikipedia)
From the summer of 1941 to late 1945, during World War II, Hubbard served in the United States Navy. Based on the representations of his experience overseas and as a writer, he was able to skip the initial officer rank of Ensign and was commissioned a Lieutenant, Junior Grade for service in the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was unsuccessful there, and after some difficulty with other assignments found himself in charge of a 173-foot (53 m) submarine chaser. In May 1943, while taking the USS PC-815 on her shakedown cruise to San Diego, Hubbard attacked what he believed to be two enemy submarines, ten miles (16 km) off the coast of Oregon. The "battle" took two days and involved at least four other US vessels plus two blimps, summoned for reinforcements and resupply. After reviewing instrument data, battle reports, interviews with the various captains and taking into account the fact that Japanese submarines didn't regularly operate there, Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, Commander Northwest Sea Frontier concluded; "An analysis of all reports convinces me that there was no submarine in the area. ... The Commanding Officers of all ships except the PC-815 state they had no evidence of a submarine and do not think a submarine was in the area." In June 1943, Hubbard was relieved of command after anchoring PC-815 off the Coronado Islands, which is Mexican territory. He further erred by conducting gunnery practice there. An official complaint from Mexican authorities, coupled with his failure to return to base as ordered, led to a Board of Investigation. It determined that Hubbard had disregarded orders, admonished him by letter to include in his records and transferred him to other duties. Since this was the third leadership position Hubbard had lost during his tenure, he was not given command authority on his next assignment. His service ended with an honorable discharge after resigning his commission in 1950. In all he had one promotion and six decorations to show for his service, however he would claim to have accomplished much more than that in the decades which followed. It would also come out that he was relieved of command twice, and was also the subject of negative reports from his superiors on several occasions.
This disgraced navy officer, having disregarded orders and been proven to be incompetent, later went on to form the self-help principle of Dienetics.
This system, of course has no basis in scientific fact, the American Psychological Association passing a resolution in 1950 calling "attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations."
However, what is clear of the practise is that a euphoric sensation does follow the procedure involved, known as "auditing."
I've elected to allow this Youtube video explain in further detail.
Auditing and Dianetics became the core of Scientology, a religious cult mean to gather support, influence and wealth. What Hubbard wound up creating was not a religion, but something closer to a Mobster-style family, build on these euphoric procedures, playing on the inadequacies of it's members and in the end becomes a potent bullying force.
In their own doctrine, members are encouraged to harass, threaten, injure and harm those that disagree with scientology, or investigate scientology. This doctrine is known as "Fair Game." Scientologists may injure, deprive of property and person who they call a "Suppressor." These people are anyone who disagrees with scientology.
The following video demonstrates the darker leanings of Scientology.
Please note, this scientology-related video contains disturbing images...
As you have seen, these vicious monsters are nothing more than a rich, influential, delusional gang.
I'd like to pause for a moment to ask you to let me know if these videos disappear from Youtube. I've made backups and will restore them if needed.
So, what are government's stances and opinions towards this movement?
Well, firstly in its ads and writings, the Scientology organization claims it is internationally recognized as a religion, except in Germany.
This is false.
Among the countries that do not consider Scientology a religion are Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, and Spain, as well as Israel and Mexico.
Thankfully, here in the UK the Scientology organization has been rebuffed repeatedly by the Charity Commission which insisted as recently as 1995 that the organization could not be considered a religion under British law and could, therefore, not enjoy any tax-exempt status.
However in the US the Scientology organization did in fact receive tax-exempt status as a religious congregation in 1993 after a decades-long, contentious battle with the IRS.
...Shame.
Personally I'm rather fond of Germany's example. Because of its experiences during the Nazi regime, Germany feels a special responsibility to monitor the development of any extreme group within its borders. German society is particularly alert towards radicalism of any kind and has set stiff standards for itself when dealing with aggressive, extreme groups; even when the groups are small in number.
This concern has prompted social institutions; churches, political parties; to make the public aware of the dangers of Scientology.
Their Federal Government has not taken any legislative action against the Scientology organization. However, some of the German states feel that steps are necessary to protect their citizens against Scientology and have taken it upon themselves to act in the following cases:
As of November 1, 1996, all applicants for admission to Bavarian public service and Bavarian public service employees must indicate whether they belong to the Scientology organization. Membership in Scientology alone does not automatically exclude individuals from public service.
The state of Baden-Württemberg has instructed its internal investigations agency (Verfassungsschutz) to monitor the Scientology organization's activities in the state beginning in 1997.
Well done Germany.
ON a grander scale, it's surprising that more work isn't being done to put down scientology. After all, they have shown a complete disregard for human rights.
The following is reproduced (with many thanks) from Scientology lies: -
A Challenge to Scientology: Show Respect for Human Rights
On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . The Declaration (minus its preamble) is reproduced below, interspersed with information about Scientology's disregard, per policy and past actions, for the human rights they claim to embrace.
In the summer of 1998, a contingent of Scientologists rallied through Europe to commemorate the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to counter the German government's critical stance on Scientology.
It is my feeling that the German government's criticism of Scientology reflects Germany's willingness to confront the truth about Scientology - its history of blatant disregard for the law and for the rights of the world's citizens. Scientology policy denies the human rights of both Scientologists and non-Scientologists, and Scientologists who have carried out those policies have caused untold harm to individuals all over the world.
I applaud Scientology and individual Scientologists for helping to draw attention to the tenets of this most important of human documents, and I urge them to actually embrace these principles immediately.
Actions speak louder than words.
In this document, text from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in blue , quotes from Scientology policy are in red , and my own comments are in green .
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
proclaims
THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Scientology literature states a belief that all people are basically good, not unlike stating that all are endowed with conscience. However, Scientology also believes that all people are at the mercy of their "reactive mind", which acts unreasoningly, so Scientology does not wholly embrace this article.
In Science of Survival , Hubbard describes people who place lower on the "Tone Scale" he invented, and says that the lower-ranking individuals do not have reason. He states:
The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0.
Scientology policy states that some of us are more irrational and prone to evil acts than others. According to this excerpt from The Scientology Handbook at Scientology's web site:
There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20 percent of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. ... if society were to recognize this personality type as a sick being as they now isolate people with smallpox, both social and economic recoveries could occur.
Here we can see that Scientology recommends quarantining 20 % of the world population. The same page says,
But the bulk of such people exhibit no outward signs of insanity. They appear quite rational. They can be very convincing.
As we see here, Scientology believes that this 20 % only appear rational.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
According to Scientology policy ( HCOPL 1 March 1965 HCO Ethics ):
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
While Scientology policy does not, to my knowledge, deny rights to individuals based on distinctions such as race, colour, or sex, it clearly DOES deny rights based on an equally frightening distinction: criticism of, disagreement with, or departure from Scientology. In other words, it denies those rights based on opinion, in direct conflict with Article 2.
Scientology's Fair Game policy specifically states that "Suppressive Persons" may be injured or destroyed. Scientologists have been applying this policy for decades, resulting in harassment, assault , and ruthlessly destructive litigation against critics.
As you read the remaining rights enumerated in this document, keep in mind that Scientology policy states that many people have, and deserve, NO rights at all.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
In Science of Survival , a key Scientology text, Hubbard wrote:
The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.
Thus, individuals who fall below 2.0 on Hubbard's "Tone Scale" may be eliminated - destroyed - killed. Without sorrow. This is diametrically opposed to Article 3's insistence on the right to life.
Scientology also denies Scientologists the right of liberty. Two Scientology policies , the "Introspection Rundown" and the "RPF" (Rehabilitation Projects Force), call for individuals to be confined, and application of those policies has resulted in several cases of false imprisonment and at least one death .
And, again, Scientology's Fair Game policy conflicts with Article 3, stating instead that "Suppressive Persons" may be injured or destroyed.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
According to a political dictionary's definition of "servitude", "It can also mean compulsory service or labor, such as a prisoner may undergo as punishment. " Scientology policy requires unpaid labor from Scientologists, both under the RPF and as part of "amends" projects for "lower ethics conditions" (which can include having a slow work week).
Although I don't believe Scientology policy endorses slavery, the many requirements for compulsory labor in Scientology are clearly at odds with Article 4.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Many former Scientologists describe horrifically cruel and degrading treatment meted out to them by Scientology executives (the one that turns my stomach is the peanut race ), but I am not aware of any Scientology policies calling for torture per se. However, the RPF is clearly designed, per policy, to be degrading. Scientologists assigned to the RPF must wear a dirty rag on their arms and are not allowed to speak to others.
Many people also consider the frequent and mandatory "sec checks" (security checks) to be degrading, as they contain questions of a highly personal nature (such as questions about one's sexual history).
Finally, a common Scientology practice, " bullbaiting ," involves having racial and sexual epithets and other derogatory comments yelled at the participant, who is required to endure it without any reaction whatsoever.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
I am not aware of any Scientology policy that contradicts this article, unless you include the previously noted policy (HCOPL 1 March 1965 HCO Ethics):
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Once again, Scientology's Fair Game policy places it in conflict with this Universal Declaration:
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.
As seen here, Scientology policy states that some people (those who are subject to this Fair Game policy) are NOT entitled to equal protection of the law.
Another Scientology policy states that those who are "upstat" - who have been doing well, or making a lot of money - should never be punished, while those who are "downstat" should be investigated. This policy may have been a factor in a decision by Scientology management that a Scientologist who had molested two young girls, Tony Strawn, should NOT be turned over to the authorities, because he was "upstat". The following quote is from HCOPL 1 September 1965, "Ethics Protection":
In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down. ... When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Scientology policy conflicts with Article 8 in two ways. First, Scientology requires Scientologists to waive their rights to pursue justice through the civil courts; instead, Scientologists are required to pursue justice (such as it is) through Scientology's internal justice system.
Second, in order to receive Scientology training or services, Scientologists are required to waive their right to sue Scientology itself. Although this waiver is probably not enforceable, many of those who sign it believe that it is, and are thereby prevented from seeking justice through the competent national tribunals.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Scientology policy conflicts with Article 10 in two ways. First, it requires Scientologists to waive their rights to pursue justice through the civil courts; instead, Scientologists are required to pursue justice (such as it is) through Scientology's internal justice system.
Second, in order to receive Scientology training or services, Scientologists are required to waive their right to sue Scientology itself. Although this waiver is probably not enforceable, many of those who sign it believe that it is, and are thereby prevented from seeking justice through the competent national tribunals.
Within Scientology, those accused of crimes are subject to a Scientology "Committee of Evidence," which lacks safeguards ensuring that it is independent or impartial. In addition, these procedings are not public, which further conflicts with Article 10.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Although I have heard that Scientology committees of evidence do not have any such presumption of innocence, I cannot find any policies referring to it at the moment, and in the spirit of this article, I will presume that Scientology is innocent of conflict with this provision until I see evidence to the contrary.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies which contradict this section of this article, either.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Scientology does especially badly with Article 12.
Scientology "sec checks" (security checks), which are mandatory and frequent, constitute an extreme invasion of privacy. Scientologists are required to reveal their thoughts and opinions, their past sexual experiences, and any crimes or embarassing acts in their past.
Scientology policy grossly interferes with the family life of its "Sea Org" staff members, separating children from parents and forbidding ordinary communication and discipline, as shown in policy statement CMO ED 411:
The following are some Consultant Advices which are for the Cadet Org and which are to be known and followed by all staff:
No order to a child or about a child must be permitted to go off lines. Parents must pass any order not to the child but through the CO Cadets who may alter or cut it if off pgm." (Consultant)
Any discipline goes through the Cadet Org HAS and MAA. Any Comm Ev is committee’d only by children.
Even more egregious are Scientology policies for RPF members, who are forbidden from even talking about certain things with their families and are not allowed to enjoy the ordinary luxuries of life (such as music or games) during the infrequent visits they are allowed with family members, as seen in FLAG ORDER 3434RB:
PERSONAL RESTRICTIONS AND PENALTIES
6. ... Some contact with a spouse or child is permitted during the RPFer's meal time or securing time once daily if the RPFer is upstat. All the above is providing no discussion of case or condition occurs and providing there is NO enturbulation whatsoever from or between either. In the case of a pre-school child contact is allowed more than-once daily during mealtimes and the schedule is to be worked out with the RPF MAA.
20. May not have with them in the RPF ANY drugs or alcoholic beverages, radios, TV, taped music, musical instruments, chess games or any such entertainment or luxury, or consume such when on authorized visits to spouse or child.
Scientology policy mandates interference with incoming personal mail addressed to staff members and both incoming and outgoing mail for members of the RPF, as specified in HCO PL of Oct 7, 1970:
MAIL LINE
The mail opener opens all mail, whether personal or otherwise and no matter how marked on the cover, which is addressed to the organization or its personnel --- excepting only mail for students and/or preclears, and packages. Example: Any letter addressed personally to a staff member and received at the HASI, even though marked personal, would be opened.
According to former Scientologist Robert Vaughn Young , his incoming and outgoing mail was read, per policy, while he was on the RPF.
Finally, although I have not found a policy mandating the defamation of people who criticize Scientology, it happens regularly enough to be noted. Many public critics of Scientology have found themselves publicly defamed. I personally was libelled in a Scientology flier.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with Article 14.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with Article 15.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with these sections of Article 16, although Scientology policy prohibits certain employees from having children and at least three people have reported several cases of coerced abortions.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Although Scientology pays lip service to this principle, in practice Scientology splits up families by placing Sea Org members' children in the Cadet Org, and by requiring Scientologists in many cases to disconnect from family members who are critical of Scientology.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Once again, Scientology's Fair Game policy places it in conflict with this Universal Declaration:
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.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; 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 his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Scientology policy conflicts with Article 18. As we see in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Scientology considers the following to be "Suppressive Acts" (the most serious wrongdoing in Scientology, worse than "High Crimes"):
Continued membership in a divergent group;
Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology;
Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else;
Calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or (persons) who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures;
Scientology defines itself (in some locations, but not others) as a religion, but by policy, the organization denies the fundamental rites of Scientology to those who wish to practice or follow Scientology outside the official organization. Scientology has attempted to deny others the right to practice Scientology through trade secret litigation; however, that attempt has largely failed, as the "trade secrets" have become public knowledge.
Article 19.
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.
Again, Scientology policy conflicts with Article 19. As we see in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Scientology considers the following types of expression to be "Suppressive Acts" (the most serious wrongdoing in Scientology, worse than "High Crimes"):
Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations;
Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened;
Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology;
Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it;
Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology;
Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press;
Testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public;
In addition, Scientology's mandatory "sec checks" (security checks) delve into the individual's private thoughts while the individual is connected to a primitive lie-detector device. Among the questions:
Have you ever had unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Scientology policy conflicts with Article 20. As we see in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Scientology considers the following types of peaceful assembly and association to be "Suppressive Acts" (the most serious wrongdoing in Scientology, worse than "High Crimes"):
Continued membership in a divergent group;
Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO;
Being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons;
Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology;
Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else;
Calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or (persons) who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures;
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
I am not aware of any Scientology policy that conflicts with this section of Article 20.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Excepting for the moment that Scientology denies the right to practice Scientology to those who work for law enforcement agencies and those with family members working for law enforcement agencies (which seems to conflict with section 2 of this article), I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with Article 21.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with Article 22.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with these two sections of Article 23.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Scientology denies this right to its employees. In accordance with Scientology policy , Scientology offices routinely ignore minimum wage and other labor laws, as confirmed by multiple reports of ex-staffers who received a pittance in salary for overlong work weeks.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Scientology policy conflicts with this principle, as seen in HCOPL 29 Apr 65, Ethics: PETITION", which states:
No two persons or more may simultaneously petition on the same matter, and if so the petition must at once be refused by the person petitioned. Collective petition is a crime under Ethics ...
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Although I am not aware of any Scientology policy that conflicts with this principle, there are numerous policies that mandate loss of "libs" (liberty, or free time) and many stories of Scientology employees working inhumane work weeks, especially (but not only) on the RPF.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Scientology denies this right to its employees. In accordance with Scientology policy , Scientology offices routinely ignore minimum wage and other labor laws, as confirmed by multiple reports of ex-staffers who received a pittance in salary for overlong work weeks. Furthermore, Scientology makes no provision for pensions for its workers, and several stories indicate that ill or aging Scientology employees are "off-loaded" and left to fend for themselves after a lifetime of service to Scientology.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
I am not aware of any Scientology policy conflicting with special care for mothers (indeed, Scientology policy is to keep silent around a pregnant woman who has been hurt, a policy that may be well-intentioned but which may increase risk to the mother and unborn child). However, it is Scientology policy that children are NOT special or different from adults; instead, they are "thetans" (souls) in small bodies. As a result, children are subjected to the RPF and the physically dangerous "Purification Rundown", and are often worked long, hard hours , just like their parents.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with this principle.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
To the extent that Scientologists and children pursue studies based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard, their education may result in a decrease in respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Several statements in Hubbard's writings show that he was no proponent of human rights. Study and application of Scientology ethics, as laid out in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", would, in my opinion, tend to produce a reduced respect for human rights and freedoms.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with this principle.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with Article 27.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
As noted above, according to Scientology policy (HCOPL 1 March 1965 HCO Ethics):
A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
Since approximately 2 1/2 percent of the population is suppressive (according to Scientology), Scientology would deny these rights and freedoms to several million people.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with this principle.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
As noted throughout this document, Scientology seeks to curtail the rights and freedoms of both Scientologists and non-Scientologists, in contradiction of this principle.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I am not aware of any Scientology policies that conflict with this principle.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
This makes it clear that none of these rights may be used to deny or destroy the rights of others. Thus, for example, Article 18's statement of the right to religious freedom does not grant any individual or religious group the right to deny the rights of others. Scientology has argued in court that its Fair Game policy is a central tenet of the Scientology religion and therefore deserves protection as an expression of religious practice. That assertion is in conflict with this article and this declaration.
Our human rights are by no means secure or guaranteed. We must all do our part to ensure that everyone enjoys these rights, everywhere in the world.
You can help protect human rights in your community, your country, and your own life. Here are a few suggestions:
Support Amnesty International . AI was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 for its worldwide work for human rights. Two excellent ways to help are to contribute a donation or write a letter expressing support for a political prisoner.
Write your elected representatives . Let them know that human rights issues are important to you. Let them know about a human rights issue that needs their attention, such as a case from the AI page or Scientology's human rights abuses listed above.
Write to Scientology . Tell them, politely, that you appreciate their support for human rights, and urge them to address human rights violations within their own organization.
------
In closing...
The evidence is available for anyone that is willing to see it. These people mustbe stopped, and soon.
If you would like to see more evidence for yourself, please check out the following links.
We are growing up in an age of inaction and (being the age that I am) I am at the core of the generation behind it along with millions of other teens to twenty-somethings. Our parents and their parents had causes and believes. Yet nowadays, when presented with evidence of such horrific events, we continue to do nothing. We're both the victims and the purveyors of horrific apathy.
It's time that more people stood up to these vicious, bullying, delusional organisations.
Spread what you now know; Stand up to these people whenever you get the chance; Don't let yourself be passive to what's going on.
PS - With their "Fair Game" policy in mind, I'd like to address my friends and family. If anything happens to me, get them. Don't let these people hurt anyone anymore. Naturally, the danger exists that "fair game" will be visited on me and this, naturally, scares the hell out of me. I'll continue to voice what I know and to spread the word though. If something does happen, do whatever you have to. Whatever they do to me, give it back to them. I can sleep easy knowing that at least.
I'll also soon be setting up a forum for victims of "Fair Game" so that we can track Scientology attacks and compare notes.
XENU TV Reborn
-
I’m pleased to announce that my website has finally been revamped and
awaiting your return. Everything from the Wog Blog has been moved over to
the site as...
Politics of Hatred
-
You know the people of whom I speak. As you’re having a conversation about
an everyday topic, they suddenly bee-line towards their own brand of
crusade,...
