Fair Game (Scientology)

Fair Game was a status assigned to those whom the Church of Scientology had officially declared to be Suppressive Persons or SPs. "Suppressive Persons" are those whose actions are deemed to "suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist." Often, this means they have been overtly critical of the church. The term "Fair Game" has also often been used to refer to a set of tactics used against perceived enemies of Scientology.

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, formulated the so-called "Fair Game Law" in 1965 but declared it "cancelled" only three years later in the wake of criticism from the media, courts and politicians. However, Church lawyers later admitted that the "Fair Game" policy had continued in operation until as late as 1980, when it was again officially declared "cancelled." There have been frequent allegations ever since that the policy's purpose remains in force and that "Fair Game" tactics are still used to attack perceived enemies of Scientology. The Church of Scientology has denied this, although it has also asserted that "Fair Game" is a legally protected form of "religious expression."

Predecessors of "Fair Game"

As early as the mid-1950s, Hubbard advocated taking a punitive line towards the perceived enemies of Scientology. In 1955, Hubbard told Scientologists that "the law can be used very easily to harass ... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage, rather than to win - if possible, of course, ruin target utterly".Hubbard, "The Scientologist - A Manual on the Dissemination of Material", reprinted in The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology volume 2, pp.151-171, 1979 printing

His confidential Manual of Justice of 1959 advocated using private investigators, as critics were invariably "found to be members of the Communist Party or criminals, usually both. The smell of police or private detectives caused them to fly, to close down, to confess." Hubbard, Manual of Justice, p.5 (1959) In a very similar vein, he advised that "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." Hubbard, "Dept of Government Affairs", HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960

By the time "Fair Game" was established, therefore, Hubbard already had a policy of taking direct action – whether in the courts or otherwise – against those he regarded as enemies. In this respect, "Fair Game" was merely a further development of a long-established approach.

The "Fair Game Law"

The "Fair Game Law" was introduced by Hubbard in a March 1965 Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCOPL), at about the same time that Scientology was experiencing serious difficulties with an ongoing public enquiry and media criticism in the Australian state of Victoria. The Church was also experiencing defections by veteran members critical of Hubbard's leadership. Several of the provisions of the "Fair Game Law" were directly related to collaboration with such "hostile" enquiries and the media, and others targeted splinter groups and those connected with them.

Hubbard highlighted so-called "suppressive persons" as "the chief stumbling block, huge above all others" and introduced a number of penalties for actions described as "suppressive." These included actions such as public criticism of Scientology or individual Scientologists, demanding the return of training fees, splitting from Scientology, giving critical testimony about Scientology to public inquiries, writing critical letters to newspapers, remaining connected to individuals "demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts" and handing Scientologists over to law enforcement authorities "without defense or protest," amongst other offenses.

The list of "suppressive acts" also included "1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings not guilty of suppressive acts". This prompted much criticism, not least from the courts. Lord Justice Megaw commented in a 1971 Court of Appeal case, "What does that mean? That it was, in the eyes of this organisation in 1965, 'a suppressive act' to be guilty of 'first degree murder', provided that the person you murdered had not been guilty of suppressive acts. The implication is obvious." Hubbard and another v Vosper and another. Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 17-19 November 1971

As for the penalties for acts considered hostile to Scientology, Hubbard wrote:

A Suppressive Person or Group becomes fair game. By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist. Hubbard, HCOPL 1 Mar 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law"

Later in December of that year Hubbard reissued the Fair Game policy with additional clarifications to define the scope of Fair Game. Crucially, he made it clear that the policy applied to non-Scientologists as well, and that it was not just a matter of internal discipline within the Church. He declared that

The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to : suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty ... this Policy Letter extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends. Hubbard, HCOPL 23 December 1965, "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law"

Hubbard made it clear elsewhere in his writings that the policy would be applied to external organizations, including governments, that were guilty of having interfered with Scientology's activities. He told Scientologists:

If the Internal Revenue Service (off-policy in refusing the FCDC Church of Scientology, Washington DC non-profit status though it qualifies) continues to act up or if the FDA does sue we can of course Comm Ev of Evidence them and if found guilty, label and publish them as a Suppressive Group and fair game ... ^*one is fair game until he or she declares against us. Hubbard, HCOPL 2 April 1965, "Administration outside Scientology"

The policy was further extended in October 1967, when Hubbard defined the "penalties" for an individual deemed to be in a "Condition of Enemy":

ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. 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. HCOPL 18 October 67 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions

Application of the Fair Game Law

Hubbard claimed in a 1976 affidavit that Fair Game was never intended to authorise harassment, stating that:

There was never any attempt or intent on my part by the writing of these policies (or any others for that fact), to authorise illegal or harassment type acts against anyone.

As soon as it became apparent to me that the concept of 'Fair Game' as described above was being misinterpreted by the uninformed, to mean the granting of a licence to Scientologists for acts in violation of the law and/or other standards of decency, these policies were cancelled. Hubbard, affidavit of 22 March 1976, quoted in David V Barrett, The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, p. 464 (Octopus Publishing Group, 2003)

However, it is clear from Hubbard's own writings that "Fair Game" was not merely intended as a passive practice. In 1965, he gave wide circulation to an executive instruction explicitly ordering the harassment of defectors under the auspices of "Fair Game". A prominent Scientologist named Harry Thompson had broken away from the Church and started his own splinter movement, Amprinistics, based on a modified version of Scientology. Hubbard reacted strongly to this and issued an Executive Letter urging Scientologists not to have anything to do with it. He also spelled out what should be done about (or to) Amprinistics' founders and members, specifically ordering Scientologists to harass the defectors:

Treatment. They are Fair Game, can be sued or harassed. Horner can be barred out of any Commonwealth Country or England as he was the subject of a deportation order from England and his file has come alive again in the Home Secretary's Office ^*. Harry Thompson's wives and victims are always looking for him to have him arrested. Watson is a set-up for arrest as a homosexual. Any meeting held by them should be torn up. ... If these persons move into your area act through any agency you can to have them deported or arrested on whatever grounds. England is currently too hot for them so they may tour about. Horner's UK deportation order, Thompson's police record and Watson's homosexuality make them very vulnerable to deportation or arrest...

Therefore this is our policy: (1) Do not mention the name Amprinistics in public or in our magazines or issues. (2) Harass these persons in any possible way. (3) Label publicly "ideas which preach no-auditing as simply Suppressive Actions to deny people case gains." (4) Tear up any meeting held and get the names of those attending and issue SP orders on them and you'll have got rid of a lot of rats. Hubbard, HCO Executive Letter of 27 September 1965, "Amprinistics"

According to the sociologist Roy Wallis, "those who attended Amprinistics meetings claim that they found themselves spied upon by Scientology personnel, and shortly after were declared Suppressive Persons, Enemies and Fair Game." Wallis, The Road to Total Freedom, p. 151

Also in 1965, Hubbard publicly declared the entire government and parliament of the Australian state of Victoria, plus their "families and connections," to be "fair game." Hubbard, "The Auditor", no. 31, p. 1. (1965) The declaration was followed by a series of lawsuits against Australian politicians and judicial figures, which were eventually dismissed by the courts.

During the late 1960s, complaints about alleged "Fair Game" harassment played a major part in prompting a number of public enquiries in the nations of the Commonwealth. In the report of the UK enquiry into Scientology, Sir John Foster highlighted two cases that had come to his notice:

^* defector from Scientology who had risen through the ranks to a high position in the organization was declared "Fair Game" over Mr. Hubbard's signature when he decided to dissociate himself. Thereafter, members of the Scientology leadership were found writing to third parties to say that the defector had been "excommunicated for theft and perversion". Another Scientologist, who had sued for the return of his auditing fees, found himself the subject of a private prosecution for theft by the Scientology leadership. Fortunately for him, he was acquitted. ''Enquiry into the Practice and Effects

of Scientology'', December 1971, p. 130

Hubbard's definition of the policy of "Fair Game" was promulgated quite separately from his instructions on the implementation of the policy. He issued a series of limited-circulation policy letters setting out the tactics to be used against those regarded as "Fair Game". A common theme uniting them was that perceived enemies had, by their actions, deprived themselves of any right to be treated with consideration. He expressed this succinctly in a 1966 executive directive:

(a) People who attack Scientology are criminals.

(b) That if one attacks Scientology he gets investigated for crimes.

(c) If one does not attack Scientology, despite not being with it, one is safe. Hubbard, LRH Executive Directive of 2 December 1966, Confidential: Project Squirrel

A standard set of methods was devised to deal with "attacks on Scientology." These included the following steps:

(1) Spot who is attacking us.

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

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

(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. Hubbard, HCO Policy Letter of 15 February 1966, Attacks on Scientology (Additional Pol Ltr)

Controversy and cancellation

The "Fair Game" policy soon gained notoriety in the British press, and even received mention in Parliament. In response to the criticism, Hubbard issued a new policy letter which ostensibly cancelled "Fair Game":

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. Hubbard, HCOPL 21 October 68, Cancellation of Fair Game

The following month, the Church of Scientology issued a "code of reform" which purported to cancel several of the Church's most-criticized policies. This highlighted the "Cancellation of declaring people Fair Game." Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand, June 1969, p. 25

However, commentators soon pointed out that the wording of the "cancellation" merely abolished the term "Fair Game" but not the practice, as the "treatment or handling of an SP" remained unchanged. Lord Justice Stephenson of the English Court of Appeal commented in 1979 that "the policy letter of 1st October 1968 cancel^* publication of the policy in the interests of public relations. but not the policy itself." Church of Scientology of California v Department of Health and Social Security and others. All England Law Reports (1979), vol. 3 Similarly, Justice Latey of the English High Court commented in a 1984 case that

It was suggested, but not pursued, that this did cancel the Fair Game treatment. It did nothing of the kind as the last sentence shows. It was cosmetic only for public consumption. Re B & G (Minors) (Custody). High Court (Family Division), 23 July 1984

Hubbard's cancellation of the labeling of "Fair Game" also did not extend to cancelling its implementation. His directives on the use of so-called "noisy investigation" and "dead agenting" tactics were never rescinded and remain part of the corpus of official Church policies.

Hubbard did use the term "fair game" in a Flag Executive Briefing Course lecture given on 3 February 1971 entitled, "As You Return to Your Org" page 6, paragraph 3: "Now, there's only one or two areas that I know of offhand who have such a superfluity of personnel, with such a missingness of production, as to make to make the whole org fair game." However, it is unclear whether "fair game" was intended in the Scientology policy sense, or in the common english sense.

Ongoing use of "Fair Game"

Despite the ostensible cancellation of "Fair Game," it continued to cause serious damage to the Church's image and reputation for years afterwards. A series of court cases in England in the 1970s saw "Fair Game" being strongly criticised by senior judges, with (for instance) Lord Justice Goff citing it to highlight what he described as the Church's "deplorable means adopted to suppress inquiry or criticism." Church of Scientology of California v. Kaufman (1973) RPC 635. Similarly, in other cases, Lord Justice Megaw discussed "Fair Game" at length and concluded that the plaintiffs (the Church) "are or have been protecting their secrets by deplorable means" and "do not come with clean hands to this court in asking the court to protect those secrets" Hubbard and another v Vosper and another (1971), and Lord Justice Stephenson noted "the policy letter of 1st October 1968 cancelling publication of the policy in the interests of public relations, but not the policy itself." Church of Scientology of California v Department of Health and Social Security and others (All England Law Reports (1979), vol. 3)

It later emerged that "Fair Game" had actually continued in use until at least 1980, despite its cancellation, and there have been frequent allegations that it has remained in force since then. During the 1970s the Guardian's Office (GO) of the Church of Scientology, headed by Hubbard's wife Mary Sue, conducted a wide-ranging and systematic series of espionage and intimidation operations against perceived enemies of Scientology. (See Operation Freakout for a noteworthy example.)

The doctrine of "Fair Game" was a central element of the GO's operational policies. The original "cancelled" Fair Game policy is listed as a reference for GO staff in its confidential Intelligence Course, Guardian Order, Confidential - Intelligence Course, 9 September 1974, p.18 which was later entered into evidence in a US Federal court case in 1979. United States vs. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F. Supp. 209, (D.D.C. 1979) During the case Church lawyers admitted that the "Fair Game" policy had continued to be put into effect long after its supposed cancellation in 1968. Indeed, according to an American Lawyer investigation, "Fair Game" tactics had been used to force the withdrawal of the presiding judge in an attempt to "throw" the case. "Scientology's War Against Judges", American Lawyer, December 1980 As the US Government's attorneys put it,

Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey.Sentencing Memorandum of the United States of America, Mary Sue Hubbard et al, Criminal Case No. 78-401, 3 December 1979

The abrogation mentioned above was issued in a policy letter of 22 July 1980, "Ethics, Cancellation of Fair Game, more about", issued by the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. However, this cancellation was itself cancelled in a subsequent HCO Policy Letter of 8 September 1983, "Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes", which cancelled a number of HCOPLs on the ground that they "were not written by the Founder ^*". In two subsequent court cases the Church defended "Fair Game" as a "core practice of Scientology", and claimed that it was therefore protected as "religious expression". Frank K. Flinn testimony in Church of Scientology of California, 1984, vol.23, pp.4032-4160 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Court of Appeal of the State of California, civ.no.B023193, 18 July 1989

Since then, a number of ex-Scientologists who formerly held senior management positions in the Church have alleged that while working for the Church they saw "Fair Game" tactics continuing to be used. In 1994, Vicky Aznaran, who had been the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center (the Church's central management body), claimed in an affidavit that

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. Aznaran affidavit, quoted in Tom Voltz, Scientology with(out) an End, chapter 13

Further policy modifications

The current policy on the handling of "suppressive persons" was promulgated in 1991. HCO Policy Letter of 23 December 1965RB, revised 8 January 1991, Suppressive Acts Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists It does not include the words "Fair Game", but sets out the type of acts considered to be "suppressive" and spells out how to deal with such situations. It concludes with this statement:

Nothing in this policy letter shall ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of the laws of the land or intentional legal wrongs. Any such offense shall subject the offender to penalties prescribed by law as well as to ethics and justice actions.

Critics have noted that this does not exclude the possibility of what might be termed "legal but unethical" actions such as the so-called "dead agenting" tactics of which the Church has often been accused. While the term "fair game" is not included in any publicly disclosed and current Church policy, critics of the Church have often charged that it continues to attack its perceived enemies relentlessly through any means possible. ^*

Court cases involving "Fair Game"

The case of L. Gene Allard, 1976

In 1976, the Church was found legally liable for the malicious prosecution of a dissatisfied Scientologist named L. Gene Allard who left Scientology in 1969. The suit specifically charged the Church with "Fair Gaming" Allard according to Church policy.

The case of Lawrence Wollersheim, 1980

In a long and contentious trial, Lawrence Wollersheim, a former Scientologist, alleged that he had been harassed and his business nearly destroyed as a result of "fair game" measures. During appeals, the Church again claimed "Fair Game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and was thus a constitutionally protected activity. That claim was denied by the appelate court on July 18, 1989. After over 20 years of legal wrangling, the Church of Scientology paid Wollersheim the amount of the judgement, plus interest: $8,674,643.

The case of Jakob Anderson, 1981

In the March 11-16, 1981, Danish court case of Jakob Anderson vs The Church Of Scientology of Denmark, ex-Guardian's Office operative Vibeke Dammon testified that the Church did in fact practice Fair Game and had done so in Anderson's case, in an attempt to get Anderson committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The case of Gerald Armstrong, 1984

In 1980, Scientologist and Sea Org officer Gerald Armstrong was assigned to organize some of Hubbard's personal papers as the basis for a biography of Hubbard. Omar Garrison, a non-Scientologist known to be sympathetic to Scientology, was hired to write the biography. Both Armstrong and Garrison quickly realized that the papers reflected unfavorably on Hubbard, and revealed that many of Hubbard's claimed accomplishments were exaggerations or outright fabrications. Garrison abandoned the project, and a disillusioned Armstrong and his wife left the Church, retaining copies of the embarrassing materials as insurance against the expected harassment to come.

Armstrong was sued by the Church in 1982 for the theft of private documents. The "Fair Game" policy became an issue in court. Armstrong won the case, in part because the Judge ruled that Armstrong, as a Scientologist of long standing, knew that fair game was practiced, and had good reason to believe that possession of these papers would be necessary to defend himself against illegal persecution by the Church. In a scathing decision, Judge Paul Breckenridge wrote:

"In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil-rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements..."

"In determining whether the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard's privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was slight, and the reasons and justification for the defendant's conduct manifest. Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to "fair game." The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer's custody." (Judge Paul Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court, June 20, 1984)

During the trial, the Church hired Frank K. Flynn, a adjunct professor of comparative religions, to write a report arguing that Fair Game was a "core practice" of Scientology and thus should be considered a constitutionally protected activity.

References

External links

Church of Scientology owned sites

Q. What does the term “fair game” refer to? -- from the Church of Scientology's FAQ pages.

Various studies

The history of fair game in Scientology as seen from the policy letters (Michel Snoeck)
The Scientology Fair Game Timeline (William C. Barwell)
Fair Game Cancellation (Freddie)

Critical sites

Other

Deceived; One woman's stand against the Church of Scientology, Bonnie Woods, London: Published by Hodder & Houghton. 2001. ISBN 034078567.
Eric J. Ascalon: Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics, American Jurist, November 1995, Vol. 9 No. 2
Robert Vaughn Young "Affidafit regarding Fair Game", declaration in the case Church of Scientology International v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, 1994.
Stephen A. Kent, University of Alberta, Statement on Fair Game for the Dennis Erlich case, February 1999
Clare Dyer, Scientologists pay for libel, The Guardian, 9 June, 1999

Scientology beliefs and practices | Scientology controversy

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Fair Game (Scientology)