Now, everyone knows what the church does to critics. It used to be called "Fair Game". Now I guess we have to call it "The abusive tactic previously known as Fair Game."
The church believes that anything destructive can and should be done to someone "declared Suppressive" -- both legal and illegal.
Recently it was Gregg from Boston. He is an active critic who, for some reason, the church singled out for attack (by TATPKAFG - "The abusive tactic..."). Apparently, after trying many things they finally got some minor complaint to stick.
Is this what an honest organization would do?
It is and has been much worse. Search for "Scientology Fair Game" for many examples. Google "Paulette Cooper". Or just see any recent news article about what the Church of Scientology is doing. The church is following Hubbard's orders to "attack, never defend".
But is that what an innocent organization would do?
The church calls in their lawyers and tries just about any legal action against critics, as with Gregg of Boston, as with the recent attempts in Clearwater. These actions are mostly not successful, but they do waste a critic's money and time, and they may sully the critic's reputation.
But is this what an decent organization would do?
The church dredges up past negative information on critics, even old, known-to-be-false information. The church creates negative information about critics, such as bomb threats. Any positive information is, of course, buried. Any negative information is magnified. Often it is just false accusations, but because the church usually does this anonymously (ironic, that) the accusations cannot be easily refuted or stopped.
But is this what an honest organization would do?
There are stories about critics being stalked by menacing men, intimidating people claiming to be "process servers" showing up at critics' doors, critics' property being damaged, even critics' pets being poisoned. These things are believed to be the handiwork of the Church of Scientology. Sometimes a critic is scared into silence, but such stories only increase the number and dedication of critics in general.
No honest, decent, innocent organization would do these kinds of things!
The church claims that all the accusations are false-false-false, but it does not react as an innocent organization would react. What it does do is try to cover up evidence and silence or "discredit" critics. What it does not do is answer the questions raised.
The actions of the Church of Scientology are not the actions of an honest organization!
What is lost, I believe, in all this battling is an idea of what this whole fight would look like if the Church of Scientology were an honest and decent organization.
Here's an example of what an honest and decent response to the reports of crimes, abuses and fraud would look like. This is what a basically good church would say.
"We are very concerned about these reports. We welcome an open, independent and thorough investigation into any and all reports. We will assist any such investigation to our fullest ability. We want to clear our good name. If any crimes are uncovered, we will do everything we can to see that those responsible within the church are brought to justice."But, of course, just saying that is not enough. The ethical, moral and honest thing to do next is to then encourage and support an independent (not Scientology-linked) investigation of everything. Open the church's compounds, shine the light into every corner. Let everyone within the church talk freely without supervision or punishment. Purge the criminals, stop the abuse, see that it never happens again. Let all who are held against their will go free. Let families be reunited. Stop all attempts to "fair game" people. Continue these actions until it is clear that all criminals in the church have been located and brought to justice and that crimes and abuses are no longer being committed or tolerated by anyone in the church.
But just compare that with what the Church of Scientology has said; What it has done.
You see, the church believes that there are only two possible courses of action, defend or attack, but they are forbidden by Hubbard the option of defending themselves. They believe they must, therefore, attack, even when they are guilty.
I suggest that there is a third option:
Be open and honest