Scientology pages index | Contact
| Scientology®: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study or What it is about and misconceptions regarding clarified |
 |
(to other Scientology pages) |
>> Do you want to help me with my research? << Consult my want list here !
Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are marked.
This page will give you the details about the infamous ‘Fair Game Law’, and various other relating to this matter.
Previously you would have found this analysis of the ‘Fair Game Law’ included (mixed in) on my page “Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter (2) - A detailed study”. Much data had been added into this page and I have now decided to move it to a page of its own, this I released as such on February 6, 2007.
- Foreword
- Events leading up to the term coming into being
- Fair Game defined and clarified
- (1) The cancellation of the practice of ‘Fair Game’
— HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” —
- ‘Penalties for Lower Conditions’ & “Hat don't hit”
- A brief history of ‘Conditions, Awards & Penances’
- Recollections & HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
- (2) Cancellation of declaring people ‘Fair Game’
— HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” —
- What does that mean?
- The ‘old green volume’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in these volumes)
- The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in this dictionary)
- What happened with the policy letters making mention of Fair Game?
Foreword
Surely this thing ‘The Fair Game Law’ is quite a charged subject. The Church of Scientology has been accused of still exercising any such practices till this day. My little write up is not aiming at defying that or justifying any of that. I forward no opinion about if this may be true or not true. It is not that which motivated me to compile this information! In all these matters regarding Fair Game however it has been seriously neglected to find out what the Scientology published writings actually say about these things. Or how did it come into being. Various things are just being assumed, too much has been assumed. Purposely also improper interpretations have been drawn which can not actually be defended when we check up on what the writings actually say and when we view its track in Scientology history. Not any of these things can be properly adjudicated if one has not properly studied and consulted these writings.
There is also the matter of even if it may be true that Fair Game in some form still would be exercised, then why would this be like that? Is it advocated by Scientology writings? Has a trick been played as some claim? Or is it just plain misunderstanding of some person(s) within the Scientology organization? On this page I have attempted to collect various. I have tried to objectively force some logic on to these matters. You however have to decide for yourself what to think of all this.
Events leading up to the term coming into being
The early 60's were turbulent years. Apparently various were creating troubles on the lines. Further there were indications of various security risks. Various of these things are related in detail in the periodical Ability. E-Meters were being confiscated. Unfavourable propaganda about Scientology hit the media.
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.
|
||
To foil these, all staff members must be alert to attempts of this nature and it is their duty to inform the Technical Director, or above, of any doubts they may have and to see that the necessary action is taken.” LRH
(from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 Issue I “Security Risks Infiltration”) |
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .” LRH (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 Issue III “Politics, Freedom from”) |
| The periodical Ability recorded the following regarding the FDA raid in January 1963: |
| ‘Ability 146’, Feb 63: | |
| “Legal Information” “The DC Situation” by L. Ron Hubbard*  “Our Role in the World” by L. Ron Hubbard*  |
|
| ‘Ability 148’, Apr 63 “Documentary”: | |
| “Introduction” by the editors “Washington Office Report on Congress of Quackery” by Harold Edwards “Twenty Questions” (which the Food and Drug Administration is required to answer) “The F.D.A. Letter” (The Thing Itself; Our Reply to the FDA Letter) “What We Ask” (require return of seized property, and to dismiss the Libel of Information) “The Present” by the editors “Important Notice” (to Scientologists regarding the E-Meter) by John Fudge |
|
 * & * The Ability periodical does not mention it, however these particular articles have been first issued as follows: (them being identical in text)HCO Information Letter 15 Jan 63 “The DC Situation” HCO Information Letter 16 Jan 63 “Our Role in the World” |
Various of these happenings are also recorded and confirmed in Omar V. Garrison's ‘The Hidden Story of Scientology’ (1974). It was found at that time that certain measures had to be taken to counteract amongst other this.
Here under I quote the first 11 paragraphs of HCO PL 1 Mar 65 "Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law" (later reissued as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”). It is this reference that actually introduced the term and the first to make mention of it.
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove
some of the fundamental barriers from our progress. |
||
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we
have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to
Suppressive Persons or Groups. |
||
A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while
active in Scientology or a pc* yet remains connected to a person or
group that is a Suppressive Person or Group. |
||
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to
suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive
Acts. |
||
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy
Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in
this policy letter. |
||
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology
while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a
Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain,
as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. Only ARC Breaks* worsen
it. To the PTP is added ARC Breaks with the Suppressive Person or
Group. The result is no-gain or deterioration of a case by reason
of the suppressive connection in the environment. Any
Scientologist, in his own experience, can probably recall some such
cases and their subsequent upset. |
||
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen.
Quite the contrary. In the most flagrant of such cases the
Scientologist's case worsened and the Suppressive Person or Group
sent endless reports to press, police, authorities and the public
in general. |
||
Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in
this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end
the situation one has a pc or Scientologist who may cave in or
squirrel because of no case gain and also a hostile environment for
Scientology. |
||
This policy letter gives the means and provides the policy for
getting the above situation handled. |
||
A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the
situation is handled. |
||
A Suppressive Person or Group becomes ‘fair game’.” LRH |
‘Fair Game’ defined and clarified
| HCO PL 1 Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law” says: |
“By FAIR GAME is meant, without rights for self, possession or position, and no Scientologist may be brought for a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is ‘fair game’.” LRH |
| In the revision 10 months later (issued as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”) the latter sentence changed to the more realistic and neutral: |
“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.” LRH |
| Additional explanation of this you will find in HCO PL 17 Mar 65 Issue II “Fair Game Law - Organizational Suppressive Acts - The Source of the Fair Game Law”. |
| (Note: The present version of this reference is HCO PL 17 Mar 65 Issue IV “Organizational Suppressive Acts” (see 1991 edition of “Organization Executive Course” volumes). The instances where it said Fair Game have been removed. Do note that the reference does not carry the revision indication as per HCO PL 2 May 72RA* “Numbering of Mimeo Issues” (see more on this reference on page “LRH vs Dictionaries”, consult here (link will open in separate window)). |
“When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member. |
||
It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group. That's like encouraging a disease. |
||
| Hence we have a Fair Game Law.” LRH (for more quotations from this HCO PL please click here (link will open as a pop-up window)) |
The above quotations of these 2 references give us a basic lay out of what it is actually about. There is a practicality involved with this. More quotations are found below.
| HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology” comments: |
“You see, none is fair game until he or she declares against us.” LRH |
| And HCO PL 16 Oct 67 “Suppressives and the Administrator - How to Detect SP's as an Administrator”: |
“Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90 percent of the population. So we get them aside for another day. |
||
We get them off lines, out of orgs* and to one side.” LRH |
| Practically it could mean: (from HCO PL 1 Mar 65) |
“..., no Committee of Evidence* may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist. |
||
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. |
||
A truly Suppressive Person or Group has no rights of any kind as Scientologists and actions taken against them are not punishable under Scientology Ethics Codes.” LRH (in italics is given the text added in the 23 Dec 65 revision of this policy letter) (–please take note that the first 2 paragraphs in the above have been deleted in a later revision of this policy letter!–) |
| And HCO PL 16 Aug 65 Issue II “Collection from SPs and PTSs” says: |
“Civil Court action against SPs to effect collection of monies owed may be resorted to, as they are Fair Game.” LRH |
| (this text was later added to the 23 Dec 65 revision of HCO PL “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law”) |
| And HCO PL 7 Mar 65 Issue II “HCO (Division 1) - Ethics - Offenses and Penalties” under heading: ‘High Crimes’ adds: |
“Cancellation of Certificates, Classifications and Awards and becoming fair game ... .” LRH |
| An often on the Internet quoted reference is HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. It says: |
“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.” LRH |
| The above is in accordance with the following definition as found in World Book Dictionary (1974 edition): | |
| ‘fair game’, “1. animals or birds that is lawful to hunt. 2. a suitable object of pursuit or attack.” | |
(1) The cancellation of the practice of Fair Game — HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” —
- ‘Penalties for Lower Conditions’ & “Hat don't hit”
- A brief history of ‘Conditions, Awards & Penances’
- Recollections & HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
‘Penalties for Lower Conditions’ & “Hat don't hit”
| It appears that HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was explicitly cancelled by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, 21 Jul 68 “same title”). Its heading says: |
“HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JULY 1968 (Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV)” |
| Also note that this HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” is not to be found in the first release of the Organization Executive Course volumes 1970-74, and that simply means that it was not in use. |
| Strictly taken is HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” a revised reissue of HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also notice the same title of this reference!). The revising issue therefore should have become HCO PL 18 Oct 67R (Revised 21 July 1968) Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. |
| (please note that there existed during the sixties a variety of reissues, that were given a new HCO PL date, even if the reissue was identical to the original issue, these particular reissues did state however that it was a reissue of HCO PL such and such; what happened to HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV was also the fate of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law”, which was a revised reissue of HCO PL 1 Mar 65 I “same title”. A new standard of dealing with this was introduced with HCO PL 2 May 72 "Numbering of Mimeo Issues" that introduced the ‘R’, ‘RA’ system) |
| It is hard to come by an actual copy of this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. In fact it appears only available as an original mimeo print-off*, meaning it is not found in any book volume or compilation pack. In Scientology publications its existence can be verified in the “Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter Subject Index” issued in 1976. It is found in Appendix A, which is a chronological listing of all Policy Letters written by L. Ron Hubbard or ordered by him. On page 215 we find the entry: |
|
| A full transcribed copy of it appears in an official report: ‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’. This is often referred to as the ‘Foster Report’. |
| With this replacement issue the condition of Enemy was rewritten and changed into: |
“ENEMY - Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.” LRH
(from HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”) |
| It can be seen here that this is not in accordance anymore with the Fair Game definition as given in World Book Dictionary (1974 edition). This would mean that the Fair Game practice was cancelled with the issuance of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. The rule is: “HCO Policy Letters do not expire until cancelled or changed by later HCO Policy letters.” LRH (from HCO PL 5 Mar 65 Issue II “Policy: Source of”). This would mean that if certain data in earlier issued policy letters is contradicted in policy letters issued at a later data, that the data that is contradicted as found in any other earlier policy letter is not in use! In this particular instance the actual definition of the condition of Enemy was changed, only a policy letter issued at a later date can reinstate that and they have to specifically clarify what is being reinstated. |
| Some however argue about “May be restrained or imprisoned.” The question is if you would stop some person who is physically assaulting someone or is going berserk and starts throwing rocks through windows (or something). Security agencies also have the legal right to stop such persons, to actually physically restrain such a person, lock him up in a room for the time being where he can do no harm to anyone till the cops arrive to collect this person. Nonetheless it has been an argument from critics of Scientology out on the Internet that “restrained or imprisoned” is synonym to practicing Fair Game, they would claim then that the revision made no difference. |
| Also this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” got replaced only a few years later by HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III “Ethics Penalties”. This time the message was indeed a very different one. It says: |
“This cancellation is contemporary with the justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person. |
||
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’. |
||
| It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.” LRH |
| Note: A full copy of this reference also appears in the earlier mentioned ‘Foster Report’. (‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’). |
It is also in concordance with what L. Ron Hubbard wrote in August 1970: “The enemy attacks are yesterday's news. He's dead. Now you HAVE TO OPEN UP YOUR AREA AND GO GO GO!” (from ‘LRH ED 120 Int’, 27 Aug 70 “Auditors Association Project In YOUR AREA for
Class IV Orgs”).
I have enabled you to consult the 3 main references in full while clicking on respective links below, they may clarify some things. One should however realize that this administrative technology at the time was still in development. Naturally if an organization is being under attack one need to figure out how to effectively handle that situation. At that time the organization endured various hazardous attacks, a handling for that was needed, and quick. Also as a result one of the most vital policies of them all was written and issued: HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”. Various quotations from this HCO PL can be consulted in my page “LRH vs Alterations (introduction)”, see Scientology index page.
| (each of the links listed here under will open as a pop-up window) | |
| HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” | |
| HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (revised reissue of HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV) | |
| HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” (cancels HCO PL 21 Jul 68) | |
The story does not end here. This last HCO PL was in its turn cancelled in 1971. Various more references replaced this. A chronology of all of these are found in the following section: “A brief history of ‘Conditions, Awards & Penances’”.
A brief history of ‘Conditions, Awards & Penances’
There is a relation between various of these HCO PL's that discuss these matters, below I have put them in chronological order and point out clearly their relation and history.
| The confusing story is briefly laid out as follows: |
|
| One could say that it went from HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” to HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”. Now, this is actually a total of 7 issues later! Meaning that the original 1967 reference had been superseded long since. And even this last one also got cancelled in 1991. Realizing this it becomes rather silly to claim that it still would be secretly in use as critics claim. Whatever causes or resembles Fair Game practices it can not be these references. HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances” notes: “It supersedes earlier BPLs (and HCO PLs) on awards and penances, application of which has at times caused bad public relations.”. |
And each in more detail explained:
|
|||
|
|||
| This policy letter was actually issued untitled, in parenthesis though was given the above text. Later policy letters may refer to this same policy letter as either HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “Conditions for Scn Orgs, Addition to Applying Formulas” or as HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “Conditions, Awards & Penalties”. These denote the exact same reference! The reference was quite short, all it did was listing a table that headed: “CONDITIONS AWARDS AND PENALTIES”, followed by the conditions Non-Existence to Power. The rules are not harsh, I guess they were just realistic for this time period. Danger Condition says amongst other: “No lunch hour and expected to work at night. Low pay and no bonuses.”. Power says: “New possessions and new insignia at Org expense. Pay and bonuses and pay raise.”. Each of these conditions were also given a ribbon and a star by which one could identify the condition one was in production wise. |
|
|||
|
|||
| This one addresses the conditions below Non-Existence. From Liability to Enemy. One could say that this policy letter complements HCO PL 26 Sept 67. Both together they list all the conditions. Pretty crude rules are found on this policy letter. (consult in full here) |
|
|||
|
|||
| This cancelled and replaced in full HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (revised reissue of this policy letter!). The severity of the actions as given in the earlier reference changed dramatically (Fair Game abolished). (consult in full here) |
| This policy letter was also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, same date “same title”) |
|
|||
|
|||
| This cancelled HCO PL 26 Sept 67 “(Conditions for Scn Orgs, All Staff, Additionally to applying Formulas.)” & HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” and 2 additional policy letters. This introduced an entirely different approach: “The motto is “Hat don't hit”.”. (consult in full here) |
| Please do take notice that the fact that simply because a reference gets cancelled that previously had cancelled another reference, that this does not mean that the original reference turns valid again. If it does it always has to be specifically noted! Thus, just because HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” got cancelled, this does not automatically reinstate HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. One should be very clear about this. |
|
|||
|
|||
| For a short while these penalties were reinstated by this policy letter written by the ‘LRH Pers Comm (LRH Personal Communicator) by order of L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’. It spoke about a “serious flap” on the lines due to a person not being “confined”, but instead “let loose” enabling this person to create a situation that “threatened the security and safety of the organization”. “The reintroduction of penalties is done by demand of HCO to enable them to carry out their duties.” |
It is listed in this policy letter as follows: |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|||
|
|||
| This policy letter adjusted HCO PL 19 Oct 71“Ethics
Penalties Reinstated”, and was also not written by L.
Ron Hubbard. It was revised 2 more times and finally cancelled as being
an HCO PL and reissued as a Board Policy Letter (BPL): - HCO PL 16 Nov 71R* (Revised 16 November 1973) “Conditions: Awards, Penances” - BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 September 1975) “Conditions: Awards, Penances” |
| I do not have a copy of HCO PL 16 Nov 71 nor its revision and also not the BPL. For this reason I am unable to give specifics. If you have any of these please do contact me! |
|
|||
|
|||
This policy letter cancelled and replaced BPL 16 Nov 71RA (Revised 6 September 1975) “Conditions: Awards, Penances”. It says: |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| We can assume that HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was cancelled/revised by either HCO PL 16 Nov 71, HCO PL 16 Nov 71R and BPL 16 Nov 71RA as HCO PL 21 Jan 81 just confirms that it remains cancelled. | ||||||||||||
| This HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances” was quite extensive, it had turned into 5 pages of text. All the different conditions had rather gentle rules, it can not be compared with the 1967 rules. Then it added various lengthy explaining. It was released attributed to ‘L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’ and ‘As assisted by Real Laplaine, Int HES’ (International HCO Executive Secretary). This in reality would mean that this was written or compiled by this Int HES as per HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”: “If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by ‘Assisted by_____’ the person who helped get it back together at my directions.” LRH. | ||||||||||||
|
|||
|
|||
| This HCO AL cancelled HCO PL 21 Jan 81 “Conditions, Awards & Penances”. I have been unable to consult this particular reference, therefore I have it not confirmed why it was cancelled. It is assumed however that it was cancelled as it was not devised by L. Ron Hubbard, about all these HCO AL's that were cancelling issues did that because of these not being written or approved by L. Ron Hubbard. |
Recollections & HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”
Now what does all the above mean practically? If you go down to basics, not so very much actually. These persons that in these early days were declared Fair Game were simply not part of that group and therefore no time is wasted on them, lines are set up to bar them from the premises, and so on. They may if they wish continue doing what they were doing, but somewhere else ... . And if at some instance they create problems you simply inform the police and let them take care of it or you bring it into court where a judge may give its ruling.
I am aware that L. Ron Hubbard has been criticized pretty much out on the Internet about this Fair Game phenomena and its actual meaning being exaggerated. It was simply a practicality to protect the group at that particular time. If there are people being unfairly handled, it may very well be so that some individuals within the organization are being overzealous in regards to this, or they may serously have misunderstood some things. However L. Ron Hubbard should not be held responsible for the misapplication of these policies. If any are being unfairly treated, then they should find the applicable violated references and oppose. One should not agree with something one does disagree with at any time. You have various options such as writing an ‘Orders, Query of’ or report the matter. Things however may get rough. I have seen and experienced the unreasonableness one may encounter regarding corrections and these matters of justice.
In 1980 a clarification of the phenomena Fair Game was written and issued by ‘THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY’. This was HCO PL 22 Jul 80 “Cancellation of Fair Game, More About”. The reference is not easy to come by, and there has also been some speculation about what it supposedly discusses out there on the Internet. To put an end to rumours the reference has been quoted in full here (link will open as a pop-up window). The reference got already cancelled in 1983 this by HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”, basically because it was “not written by the Founder”.
(2) Cancellation of declaring people 'Fair Game' — HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” —
- What does that mean?
- The ‘old green volume’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in these volumes)
- The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in this dictionary)
- What happened with the policy letters making mention of 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*.” LRH (from HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” - full text of the policy letter is given) |
| So it says: “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.” Strictly taken this may not address the practice of Fair Game itself. It could be inferred from this that only the “practice of declaring” (like in not using the name Fair Game) would be cancelled, but still allowing Fair Game itself being practiced. This conclusion is actually what a variety of critics to Scientology tell us out on the Internet. It also says: “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” Some will argue that Fair Game was such a treatment. And indeed, they may have had a point if it was not for the existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. The issue that had cancelled the actual practice of Fair Game exactly 3 months earlier. We can see here that there was in fact no need to cancel its practice anymore, as the practice was already cancelled! Claiming therefore that it was secretly advised to continue to practice Fair Game, but stop declaring becomes absurd. That which caused this misconception may very well have been that this policy letter is not easy accessed, it is also not included in these ‘Organization Executive Course’ volumes. Why not? Because this reference itself at the time had already been superseded by other references. As noted earlier the full text of that reference does appear in the official report: ‘Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology: Report by Sir John Foster, K.B.E., Q.C., M.P.; Published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, December 1971’. |
If some form of practice of Fair Game was or is exercized it obviously can not be coming from these references.Critics however appear to want to hold on to their argument made and thus seem to reason that HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” somehow reinstates the practice of Fair Game. We can however infer that it does not do that. It seems rather being a reinforcement that Fair Game was over and done with as some may have continued to use the term, thus HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” was issued to take care of that part. |
| Why would there have been any need for reinforcement? The problem may have been that the message of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was not clear enough for some. It simply changed the condition of ‘Enemy’ and moved the term Fair Game out of there. This is not as direct as saying: “Fair Game is cancelled”, but it still implied that it was in fact cancelled. Also note that HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was replaced in full by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. This factually means that it obliterated the use of that which it advocates! |
| Out on the Internet this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions” is as a rule not quoted by the critics! They would say then that the actual practice of declaring someone ‘Fair Game’ was still secretly in use. |
“The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release. |
||
Don't for heaven's sake mistake alter-is by somebody as evidence of a hidden line. |
||
There is no hidden data line.” LRH
(from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 Issue I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”) |
The ‘old green volume’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in these volumes)
| Another argument of critics of Scientology is that the old green volumes* contained policy letters referencing to Fair Game. These volumes were first released between 1970-74, but only available to staff (till December 1973). In 1974 they were all released to the public. Some updates to policy letters already present in these volumes appear to have been incorporated in this 1974 release (Vol. 0 contains a few updates from 1973). Virtually however they remained the same, no policy letters issued since the first staff release have been added to these volumes. In fact they have been reprinted until 1986 exactly as they were since 1974. During all of this time these volumes still contained various references that referred to Fair Game. What the critics of Scientology usually do not mention is that any of these particular references as found in those volumes carried a notice clarifying matters at the bottom of the last page of each of these references. This notice referred to HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” (you can consult any of these notices for yourself here (link will open as a pop-up window)). |
| It could also not refer to HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, simply because this issue itself was already replaced by another reference in 1970 and well by HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III “Ethics Penalties”. Volume 1 of the old green volumes contains policy letters dated as late as Dec 1970. This HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III “Ethics Penalties” could have been included in the original first release, I don't have a copy of this original staff release from 1971, so I can't tell (if anyone can check this for me please contact me). It is more likely however that it was not deemed necessary to include it as it cancelled this penalties system and it was simply end of cycle. All I know for sure is that it is not included in the 1974 release of the volume for the simple reason that this 1970 policy letter itself had been superseded by various other references (this is all addressed in detail in my section “A brief history of ‘Conditions, Awards & Penances’”). |
Alright, at the time of the issuance of these old green volumes these references mentioning Fair Game in them had not been revised yet, and have the Fair Game removed out of them. This is somewhat understandable as new policy letters were frequently written, policy so to say was in development, and you can't incorporate changes in any and all of these already existing references when something changed and reissue them immediately. It would be a confusing and also a very expensive affair. But it may have been a good decision if at least in the case of some of these policy letters making mention of this Fair Game that they would have been updated and reissued as soon as possible. Anyway, this has not been done. To inform the readers anyhow it was necessary to include these Fair Game is cancelled notices. This was also done in various course packs that listed these references on the checksheet.
The ‘Admin Dictionary’ argument (referencing to Fair Game as found in this dictionary)
‘Fair Game’ is also given as a definition in the ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (1st published 1976 and usually referred to as the Admin Dictionary). People should understand that this in actual fact is a dictionary. And why do we have dictionaries? Yes, simply to clear up any misunderstandings. For a short period of time we had this Fair Game practice. So, naturally a definition of Fair Game should be included in such a dictionary. Any and all reprints of this dictionary were reissues of the original 1976 release, i.e. no changes had been incorporated. In present time however the book is seriously out of date, containing a variety of issues not in use anymore.
In a standard Qual Library* you will also have access to any of these issues, old as well as new, but in an up-to-date Qual Library those having been cancelled and not in use will have received the stamp: ‘CANCELLED’.
What happened with the policy letters making mention of Fair Game?
Below are listed in first release order all of the references that had mentioned the term Fair Game. #1-6 of these had not been revised at the time of the issuance of the 1974 release of the green volumes and were therefore in need of additional explanation. This was also required if these issues were included in course packs. Therefore notices were printed at the bottom of these particular references (link provided will open as a pop-up window).
| 1. HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law” (Revision of ‘HCO PL 7 Mar 65, Issue I’ - originally misdated as 1 March 1965) Fair Game referencing removed: 31 December 1979 Done by: HCO PL 23 Dec 65R “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” Revision notices: None in regards to Fair Game (original mimeo print-off has been consulted) |
| Although the revision notes say nothing about Fair Game, nonetheless any and all referrals to Fair Game were in fact removed (including deleting it from its title). It in addition deleted the following paragraphs: |
| “..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist. |
|||
| 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.” LRH |
|||
2. HCO PL 7 Mar 65 Issue III “Offenses & Penalties”
Fair Game referencing removed: 24
October 1975
Done by: HCO PL 7 Mar 65R Issue III “same title”
Revision notices: ? (I have been unable to consult this revision, however it is assumed that it did contain notices in regards to Fair Game being removed, it is however unverified as yet!)
Do you have a copy of this HCO PL 7 Mar 65R Issue III “Offenses & Penalties”? Please
contact me!
3. HCO PL 17 Mar 65 Issue II “Fair Game Law - Organizational Suppressive Acts - The Source of the Fair Game Law”
Fair Game referencing removed: late 80's, probably ca 1990.
Done by: HCO PL 17 Mar 65 (no reissue date found) Issue IV “Organizational Suppressive Acts”
Revision notices: None (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments: This is obviously the same reference, even it being switched to an Issue IV reference. The issue has been stripped from its Fair Game referencing (including from its title), and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.
4. HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Administration Outside Scientology”
Fair Game referencing removed: 14 December 1980
Done by: HCO PL 2 Apr 65R “same title”
Revision notices: “(Revised to delete references to ‘fair game’)” (taken from original mimeo print-off)
5. HCO PL 5 Apr 65 “Handling the Suppressive Person - The Basis of Insanity”
Fair Game referencing removed: 20 November 1987 (it was unrevised included in the PTS/SP Course Pack issued Sept 2, 1986)
Done by: HCO PL 5 Apr 65 (Reissued 20 November 1987) Issue I “same title”
Revision notices: None (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments: The issue has been stripped from its Fair Game referencing, and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.
6. HCO PL 16 Aug 65 Issue II “Collection From SPs and PTSs”
Fair Game referencing removed: between 8 January & 13 March 1991 (the year is deriving from a referencing made in the new version of the issue, it is also included in the 1991 release of OEC volumes, and must therefore have been revised in 1991 - an additional note can be made about that an excerpt (without Fair Game and an additional paragraph) of this issue appeared in the PTS/SP Course Pack, issued Sept 2, 1986, at the bottom of the version found in that pack is mentioned that the full text of the Policy Letter is found in the 1974 OEC volumes, which then does contain a reference to Fair Game
Done by: HCO PL 16 Aug 65 (no reissue date found) Issue II “same title”
Revision notices: None (original mimeo print-off has been consulted)
My comments: The issue has been stripped from its Fair Game referencing, and should therefore have turned into an ‘R’ issue.
7. HCO PL 18 Oct 67 Issue IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” (also issued as ‘Flag Order 1063’, same date “same title”)
Fair Game referencing removed: 21 July 1968
Done by: HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “same title” (available only as an original mimeo print-off)
Revision notices: None in regards to Fair Game directly, the condition of Enemy had been redefined and the Fair Game referencing was removed while doing that. But it did say: “(Cancels HCO Pol Ltr 18 October 67 issue IV)”.
My comments: Prior to 1972 it was the common practice that revised references (or unrevised reissues) received the date it was revised or reissued. A new standard was introduced in 1972 with HCO PL 2 May 72 "Numbering of Mimeo Issues". If this standard had been used with this reference it would have been issued as HCO PL 18 Oct 67R (Revised 21 July 1968) Issue IV “same title”.
| It has been noted that 3 issues in the above had been stripped from their Fair Game referencing, but they had not been turned into an ‘R’ issue. In addition of 2 of these we are unable to find the exact reissue date. It seems that some quietly wanted to remove the Fair Game referencing out of them without drawing any attention to it. In any case it is not following the rules as laid out in HCO PL 2 May 72RA "Numbering of Mimeo Issues": |
“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.” LRH
|
It's a little odd if you think about how much time it took till these issues were actually stripped from their Fair Game referencing, and reissued without it. Especially this is in fact a shame for HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts - Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists - The Fair Game Law”, which is a very frequently used reference when putting together Ethics Orders. It may have added to the confusion about the subject as found out on the Internet, but even within the Scientology organizations.
Vocabulary:
71R, 72RA, 65RB:
For example: ‘HCO PL 16 Nov 71R’, ‘HCO PL 2 May 72RA’ & ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued.
If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
ARC, ARC break:
ARC: A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.”
ARC break: A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication
or understanding. It’s called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person’s state of mind.
Committee of Evidence (Comm Ev):
A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature.
CSW:
‘Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.” It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
green volume(s):
Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. The ‘old green volumes’ refers to the 1974 release, ‘new green volumes’ refers to the 1991 release.
HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses.
HCO PL (Pol Ltr, P/L or PL):
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues.
LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’, this is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any administrative references. These references are mostly printed green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves have green bindings. Also referred to as the ‘green volumes’.
org, orgs:
Abbreviation for ‘organization(s)’.
original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (link will open in a separate window).
pc:
‘preclear’. A person who is receiving processing usually is referred to as that.
PTP:
‘Present Time Problem’.
PTS (Potential Trouble Source):
Those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow.
Qual Library:
‘Qualification Library’: Located in Division 5 (Qualification Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.
Scientology Admin(istrative) Dictionary:
This is the publication ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (first released 1976). Usually referred to as simply Admin Dictionary. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
SP:
A usual abbreviation for Suppressive Person.
| Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
Michel
Snoeck. All rights reserved. This page revised: 2 May, 2010 |
|